Who Won? Robert Whittaker or Yoel Romero?

[NGute87]

Glad someone is.

Nothing to say? The idiot has been silenced. Loss of vocabulary or are you that ignorant?

 

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

no 10-8's

1 knockdown, 1 takedown, 46 strikes to 14. Near finish for 1/2 the round.

 

[spannered]

We already did one of these. Anyway, in my opinion Romero should not have lost. I could see a draw with one 10-8 or a win with two 10-8 rounds.

Also of note, the current scoring system is absolutely and inconceivably stupid. Why score out of ten, why not just score of 2 or 3? It’s not like we ever use 6 to 0 anyway. 7 is used maybe once a year if there is there is a couple of point deductions or one fighter almost kills another and there is a point deduction. 10-8 happen once every 30 fights or something. A bunch of children could make rules that make more sense than this crap.

There's never been a 10-7 round in the UFC.

Judges don't even like giving out 10-8's.

I scored the fight a draw, giving Yoel the 10-8 for the 5th round. All the other rounds were pretty clear 10-9's, and Rob won 3 rounds to two.

 

[ToroSalvaje]

1 Whittaker 10-9
2 Whittaker 10-9
3 Romero 10-9
4 Romero 10-9
5 Romero 10-8

 

[GTS]

According to the rules that are in place, if a judge considers that the fight could have been stopped, he may score the round 10-7. When Whittaker turtled up and Romero took his back, there's definitely an argument the referee could have stopped the fight there.

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

A 10 – 7 round in MMA is a score that judges will rarely give. It takes both overwhelming DOMINANCE of a round, but also significant IMPACT that, at times, cause the judge to consider that the fight could be stopped. Judges shall asses for multiple blows that diminish the fighter, and/or grappling maneuvers that place the fighter in dominant situations with impact being inflicted that visibly diminishes the losing fighter’s ability to compete.

So, you couldn't show me a single instance of a 10-7 round, or at least you know those scored as 10-7 don't look anything like the round you're referring to, just more of your personal definition and cherry-picked definitions that match yours.

 

[det_regnar_på_vår_kärlek]

So, you couldn't show me a single instance of a 10-7 round, or at least you know those scored as 10-7 don't look anything like the round you're referring to, just more of your personal definition and cherry-picked definitions that match yours.

If judges are incompetent and don't apply the rules to assess the fight, I have nothing to do with that. My argument is based on the rules. According to the rules, a 10-9 round is a round won by a small margin. Hence my argument that the 5th round was closer to a 10-7 than a 10-9. I scored it a 10-8. To me it was as clear as a 10-8 gets.

 

[UFCfan91]

I had whittaker winning 1,2 and 4

Could see the argument of a draw but not a romero win with round 5 being a border line 10-8

But I'm assuming all the judges scored it 10-9 so that is moot

 

[UFCfan91]

Romero did basically nothing for 2 rounds, can't play it safe and expect to win like that. Specially when his eye was damn near closed and scoring being so close in others.

Yeah

Only has himself to blame being so inactive

Whittaker wasn't helped by breaking his hand, that helped Romero fight back

 

[GTS]

If judges are incompetent and don't apply the rules to assess the fight, I have nothing to do with that. My argument is based on the rules. According to the rules, a 10-9 round is a round won by a small margin. Hence my argument that the 5th round was closer to a 10-7 than a 10-9. I scored it a 10-8. To me it was as clear as a 10-8 gets.

So, you couldn't show me a single instance of a 10-7 round, or at least you know those scored as 10-7 don't look anything like the round you're referring to, just more of your personal definition and cherry-picked definitions that match yours. Derp......

 

[Skankhunt420]

It was either Romero or draw

 

[NGute87]

I had whittaker winning 1,2 and 4

Could see the argument of a draw but not a romero win with round 5 being a border line 10-8

But I'm assuming all the judges scored it 10-9 so that is moot

A mature response. You are fair about it.

 

[bambammccoy]

A draw is being generous to Yoel.

I voted Whittaker.

 

[Jin Akutsu]

47-47 Draw.

On a rewatch I scored rounds 1, 2, and 4 for Whittaker. I scored 3, and 5 for Romero with the 5th being 10-8.

 

[GTS]

See TS, 1.6% more people said Romero won than said Whittaker won so, ROBBERY OF THE MILLENIUM, WHITTAKER DIED IN EVERY ROUND AND HAD TO BE BROUGHT BACK WITH A DEFIBRILLATOR AND A SEANCE WHILE ROMERO NEVER EVEN BROKE A SWEAT.
[/end sherdog mode]

 

[El Fernas]

Right guy won, 3-2 Whittaker.

 

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

Seeing a lot of strange rationalizing with the Whittaker/Romero decision and the fans that feel that Whittaker rightfully got the nod.

Just wanted to point out the idea that forcing yourself to see how/why the judges would score a fight for a certain fighter does not by any means imply that the decision was right.

Many people were committing this logical fallacy with the GSP/Hendricks decision.

You could literally take a fight like Cain/JDS II, if the nod was given to JDS, and play mental gymnastics with yourself to argue how the decision was correct.

The question you should ask yourselves with decisions like Romero/Whittaker II and GSP/Hendricks is this:

• If the decision went the other way, would there be more or less outrage? That is, how much more effort would you have to put into your empathetic rationalizing to understand how the judges scored the fight the way they did?

Now that's out of the way, here's how the fight should have been scored and could have been scored under completely objective judging:

Round 1: Whittaker tees off on Romero with strikes the entire round. No answers from Romero. 10-9 for Whittaker.

• Should have been scored: 10-9 Whittaker

Round 2: Whittaker gets the better of the exchanges in another uneventful round.

• Should have been scored: 10-9 Whittaker

Round 3: Romero rocks Whittaker and proceeds to beat his ass for most of the round. Whittaker survives and manages to answer with some hard shots of his own that make this round a 10-9 instead of a 10-8.

• Should have been scored: 10-9 Romero

Round 4: This round looks like rounds 1-2 for the majority of the 5 minutes before Romero seriously hurts Whittaker again with 2 hard shots. Despite this, Whittaker has a lead in significant strikes (34-20). Romero deals more damage but scores no knockdown.

• Should have been scored: 10-10.
• Could have been scored: 10-9 Whittaker. 10-9 Romero.

Round 5: Romero's most dominant round. Similar to round 3, Romero knocks Whittaker down and scores a takedown. Unlike in round 3, there are no answers from Whittaker. Complete and utter decimation of Whittaker. 46 strikes from Romero, 14 strikes from Whittaker.

• Should have been scored: 10-8 Romero.

Final Decision:

• Should have been: 48-47 Romero
• Could have been: 48-48 Draw. 48-46 Romero.

Round 3 is certainly Romero's.

Round 5 is certainly a 10-8 for Romero.

Round 4 was the murkiest round because the most meaningful moment of the fight had Romero send Whittaker to drunk street but, looking past that, there were 4 minutes of technical exchanges that Whittaker was leading in with minimal responses from Romero. Could arguably give this round to Whittaker despite the only damage in that round being inflicted on him.

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

 

[TrueFightFan]

I just saw the fight and would say Whit 48-47. Only real swing round is 4 and Whit given the fact he's the champ and Yoel missed weight should always get the nod in a close round.

I don't believe there were any 10-8 rounds to make up a draw.

What's the consensus here?

I don't think we saw a 10-8 or 10-7 because those usually go to a fighter who is winning a round and then knocks his opponent down or wobbles him. Whitaker was winning the rounds that he was wobbled in. So, to me, those flipped from 10-9 Whitaker rounds to 10-9 Romero rounds. Still a two-point swing but Romero was not winning either of those rounds.

 

[Jon Stark]

Good thing you don't make the scoring criteria then. Being a champion should mean absolutely nothing in determining the winner of a round. If the round is close then it should be a 10-10, not 10-9 because someone is the champ. And missing weight has 0 impact on scoring regardless of your feelings.

I don’t like how you make it sound like a 10-10 round is an actual probable option. They don’t happen. Adding that variable to your opinion makes it weak, weaker than mine of thinking a champion should win a close round.

 

[Jon Stark]

Seeing a lot of strange rationalizing with the Whittaker/Romero decision and the fans that feel that Whittaker rightfully got the nod.

Just wanted to point out the idea that forcing yourself to see how/why the judges would score a fight for a certain fighter does not by any means imply that the decision was right.

Many people were committing this logical fallacy with the GSP/Hendricks decision.

You could literally take a fight like Cain/JDS II, if the nod was given to JDS, and play mental gymnastics with yourself to argue how the decision was correct.

The question you should ask yourselves with decisions like Romero/Whittaker II and GSP/Hendricks is this:

• If the decision went the other way, would there be more or less outrage? That is, how much more effort would you have to put into your empathetic rationalizing to understand how the judges scored the fight the way they did?

Now that's out of the way, here's how the fight should have been scored and could have been scored under completely objective judging:

Round 1: Whittaker tees off on Romero with strikes the entire round. No answers from Romero. 10-9 for Whittaker.

• Should have been scored: 10-9 Whittaker

Round 2: Whittaker gets the better of the exchanges in another uneventful round.

• Should have been scored: 10-9 Whittaker

Round 3: Romero rocks Whittaker and proceeds to beat his ass for most of the round. Whittaker survives and manages to answer with some hard shots of his own that make this round a 10-9 instead of a 10-8.

• Should have been scored: 10-9 Romero

Round 4: This round looks like rounds 1-2 for the majority of the 5 minutes before Romero seriously hurts Whittaker again with 2 hard shots. Despite this, Whittaker has a lead in significant strikes (34-20). Romero deals more damage but scores no knockdown.

• Should have been scored: 10-10.
• Could have been scored: 10-9 Whittaker. 10-9 Romero.

Round 5: Romero's most dominant round. Similar to round 3, Romero knocks Whittaker down and scores a takedown. Unlike in round 3, there are no answers from Whittaker. Complete and utter decimation of Whittaker. 46 strikes from Romero, 14 strikes from Whittaker.

• Should have been scored: 10-8 Romero.

Final Decision:

• Should have been: 48-47 Romero
• Could have been: 48-48 Draw. 48-46 Romero.

Round 3 is certainly Romero's.

Round 5 is certainly a 10-8 for Romero.

Round 4 was the murkiest round because the most meaningful moment of the fight had Romero send Whittaker to drunk street but, looking past that, there were 4 minutes of technical exchanges that Whittaker was leading in with minimal responses from Romero. Could arguably give this round to Whittaker despite the only damage in that round being inflicted on him.

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

10-10 rounds are a myth. Give an example of 10 “10-10” rounds in the last 10 years in the UFC. I’ll wait.

 

[Jon Stark]

I don't think we saw a 10-8 or 10-7 because those usually go to a fighter who is winning a round and then knocks his opponent down or wobbles him. Whitaker was winning the rounds that he was wobbled in. So, to me, those flipped from 10-9 Whitaker rounds to 10-9 Romero rounds. Still a two-point swing but Romero was not winning either of those rounds.

10-7???? Come on guys. 10-7 and 10-10 rounds are unicorns. Using that in your comments and opinion is nonsense.