I don't get this narrative that Romero's round 5 was a 10-8 round. Anyone else?

Piece of Sheet said:
Romero dropped him, out landed him by 30 strikes and did about 3 trip take downs while controlling 95% of the round

If thats not a 10-8 then I dont know what is
Click to expand...

He was also separated for inactivity, aka doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. But yeah, I can at least see the argument for a 10-8 round upon re-watching, but I don't know. I'm not as convinced as some people.
 
Piece of Sheet said:
Romero dropped him, out landed him by 30 strikes and did about 3 trip take downs while controlling 95% of the round

If thats not a 10-8 then I dont know what is
Click to expand...

30 strikes?

Round 5
Whittaker 14 of 29
Romero 26 of 47

The most "outlanding" round was the first, in favor of Whit, with 33 to 9.

Source
http://www.fightmetric.com/fight-details/5a09fd7cb3db9705


Brit_Brawler said:
I’d like to know what were the numbers in round one. How many strikes did rob and Romero land? Could anyone point me in the direction please?
Click to expand...

33 to 9




 
Oh shit, round 5 Yoel out landed him by 12 strikes and got separated for inactivity, clear 10/8...

There was no 10/8 Round in that fight and no one would even be mentioning it if Rogan never brought it up in commentary.
 
PROlogic said:
Im truly flabbergasted

Romero dropped Whittaker, and then the rest of the round was Whittaker holding on to a single, Romero riding the back, or both battling for position in the clinch

Where is this fake news coming from that Romero beat Whitaker from corner to corner while scoring multiple knockdowns?


Under no criteria was it a 10-8 round

It wasn't a round where a fighter had total and absolute full control from a very dominant position for the entirety of the round ala Shogun's round 5 against Hendo (Shogun was robbed of a DRAW)

It wasnt a round where a fighter was dropped numerous times and had an absolute striking clinic put on them ala Conor's massacre striking clinic on Nate in round 2 of their rematch (Conor was robbed blind of a clear cut dominant UD decision over Nate)


There was NOTHING about Romero's round 5 that ever consistuted a legit 10-8 round, no matter the criteria you try to use.


Just goes to show you how many were brainwashed by Rogan's insanely biased commentary


Remember, all MMA fights are scored round by round, so based on the actual scoring criteria, the only correct decision was Whittaker 48-47. Judges were actually bang on spot on with this fight. Super super super close fight, but a fight that Romero in no way deserved to actually win

For all the talk about 10-8s, how ABOUT WHITTAKER'S round 1. Whittaker out struck Romero in the numbers by some crazy amount in that round.
Click to expand...
What you have to consider is this: that same night mike Jackson got a 10-8 for very little and yoel did not in a round where he knocked Whittaker down, took him down three times and almost had him finished twice...
 
Its all off the back of Joe Rogan and his love for Yoel.
The point is valid though but it was a draw at best.
 
You could have said that in about a third of the length.
 
Oj21 said:
What you have to consider is this: that same night mike Jackson got a 10-8 for very little and yoel did not in a round where he knocked Whittaker down, took him down three times and almost had him finished twice...
Click to expand...
Robert did a much better job fighting back. He took way more punishment and still had success in the round. That is the difference. One man got beat from bell to bell. One man did not, dispite taking more punishment.
 
To me 8-10 rounds were always gone of the dodgiest areas of MMA judging with a seeming favourism as to who got them. All that seems to have happened with the rule shift is rather than being rare but going to favoured guys like Forrest there now common but don't go to unflavoured guys like Romero(in this situation missing weight).
 
ApplesVild said:
Round 1 was a 10/8 for Whittaker since Yoel did absolutely nothing and Whittaker landed like 40 significant strikes.
Click to expand...
I thought that to lol. If round 5 is a 10-8 how ain't 1.

Romero did absolutely nothing in that round ffs.
 
I'm a big Whittaker fan, but I get people saying rd 5 was 10-8. I don't think it's just butthurt Romero fans. It really looked like the fight was going to get stopped, and I think that if it was a different ref, it would have been.

Under the new scoring criteria (which this fight was under), 10-8s are meant to be more commonplace. If you wanted to be really generous, it could've gone 10-8 in 3 and 5 to Romero, and 10-8 in 1 and 2 from Whittaker.

Still, glad he won though.
 
Boorrrrriiiiinnnnngggg! Who gives a fuck about the 5th fucking rd? Get a fucking life!
 
Don't confuse this current system with the old one.

Here using the new system we get to score rounds 10-8 and 10-7's and using the new system we have it a 10-8

If we use the old system it's not. It meant it needed to be a 10-7 in the new scoring and it wasn't that drastic get it ?

You are just using the old rules and aren't getting to our result and wonder why many of us got there when we just used the new scoring system and can give a 10-8 easier in situations like this cause that round wasn't just a 10-9.
 
Last edited:
NGute87 said:
Robert did a much better job fighting back. He took way more punishment and still had success in the round. That is the difference. One man got beat from bell to bell. One man did not, dispite taking more punishment.
Click to expand...
I know the arguement you are trying to make but the problem is that one of those rounds he competely turtled up and wasn't even fighting back he just was doing that thing where the only place open is the back of the head. One of the rounds he really didn't fight back. He got back up and then was almost tkod along the fence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,557
Messages
55,427,243
Members
174,774
Latest member
Judoka_Noob

Share this page

Back
Top