They only scored it a 10-8???

Koro_11

Koro_11

Gold Belt
@Gold
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
20,334
Reaction score
19,283
This fight between Anders and Rountree perfectly shows just how retarded UFC judging is.

10-8s are given when there is one knock down, when you have four and complete domination like that the score should indicate just how much of a dominant round it was.

If rounds one and three were super close and they gave them to Anders, that fight would’ve been a draw, that’s just fucking stupid.
 
Last edited:
Was a little surprised it's a 10 - 8 round too

Got dropped 4 times brutally in the 2nd round
 
What is a 10-7 in MMA?

I guess you have to literally kill the guy.

Anders got outstruck like a 100 to 1 in that round, and dropped 4 times, and they treated it the same as they do when there's only one knockdown and it's not nearly as one sided.

With all the problems mma has, judging has to be the worst one.
 
Koro_11 said:
What is a 10-7 in MMA?

I guess you have to literally kill the guy.

Anders got outstruck like a 100 to 1 in that round, and dropped 4 times, and they treated it the same as they do when there's only one knockdown and it's not nearly as one sided.

With all the problems mma has, judging has to be the worst one.
Click to expand...
Seriously. That was a life-changing beating Anders took in the 2nd round.
 
That was a 10-7 5th round imo... Have no idea how Kelvin survived that.

Anders fight was a 10-7 as well imo...
 
4 kds should be a 10-7, pretty straightforward
 
I also had 30-25 and was surprised the judges went that easy.
 
Damn son (insert yearbook photo of little Asian fella here), but if the biggest complaint you have is that a round was 10-8 instead of a 10-7, you had a pretty fucking fantastic weekend!
 
I take a point off for each knockdown while I'm scoring in my head. I don't care of that's technically right, I'm not a judge.

Atleast the right guy won, that's what's important.
 
Shoulda been 10-8

Ppl hate judges, yet they want judges to have more discrepancies and power...

Government sucks! I want more of it!!!!!
 
SeattleFightFan said:
Damn son (insert yearbook photo of little Asian fella here), but if the biggest complaint you have is that a round was 10-8 instead of a 10-7, you had a pretty fucking fantastic weekend!
Click to expand...
Ya man it was an awesome event, and thankfully none of the important bouts were ruined by shitty judging this time, but that shit ruins fights and careers. You're fighting for a title you worked all your life to get to, and you get robbed by some shitty split decision because the 3 chimps who are scoring your fight dont have a clue what the criteria is.
 
Under the new rules:

"A 10 –8 Round in MMA is where one fighter wins the round by a large margin."

“A 10 –7 Round in MMA is when a fighter completely overwhelms their opponent in Effective Striking and/or Grappling and stoppage is warranted.”

Round 2 of the Rountree was an exact definition of a 10-7. I think judges are just afraid to to give the score since under the new rules, it's supposed to be a super rare occasion. Well guess what, this was the occasion and you got it wrong.
 
Senzo Tanaka said:
Under the new rules:

"A 10 –8 Round in MMA is where one fighter wins the round by a large margin."

“A 10 –7 Round in MMA is when a fighter completely overwhelms their opponent in Effective Striking and/or Grappling and stoppage is warranted.”

Round 2 of the Rountree was an exact definition of a 10-7. I think judges are just afraid to to give the score since under the new rules, it's supposed to be a super rare occasion. Well guess what, this was the occasion and you got it wrong.
Click to expand...
What’s the last 10-7 we saw? Maia v Gunner maybe?

Other than Starns v Quarry have we ever seen a 10-7 in a purely standup affair in MMA?

I’m not saying you or TS are wrong. I’m just investigating possibilities. Refs go through a lot of training that teach them a lot which isn’t spelled out specifically in NAC 467, and it could be that stand up domination with little attempt to finish (and zero attempt to follow up on the ground after a knockdown) simply doesn’t qualify. And if we haven’t taken a half dozen of the training seminars these guys go through, we as less educated fans might not know.
 
SeattleFightFan said:
What’s the last 10-7 we saw? Maia v Gunner maybe?

Other than Starns v Quarry have we ever seen a 10-7 in a purely standup affair in MMA?

I’m not saying you or TS are wrong. I’m just investigating possibilities. Refs go through a lot of training that teach them a lot which isn’t spelled out specifically in NAC 467, and it could be that stand up domination with little attempt to finish (and zero attempt to follow up on the ground after a knockdown) simply doesn’t qualify. And if we haven’t taken a half dozen of the training seminars these guys go through, we as less educated fans might not know.
Click to expand...

The new rules make it pretty clear. You base your scoring off striking, grappling, aggression and octagon control in that importance. If there is zero striking in the fight and someone lands takedown after takedown, that would still be a 10-8.

Big John had a lot of input in the new rules and he said you should be seeing a lot of 10-8s now but 10-7 should be extremely rare because the ref probably should be stopping the fight. That happened in this fight. There were 2 knockdowns where it probably should have been stopped and he was dominated the entire round.

Before the new rules, there was an unspoken rule that you never give 10-10 rounds because it makes you seem like you don't know what you are doing. I think judges were afraid to go 10-7 because either they didn't know any better or were afraid to use such a rare score. Either way, I think they got it wrong and unfortunately, there is no accountability or training to make sure they get it right next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,101
Messages
55,467,687
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top