Who Won? Robert Whittaker or Yoel Romero?

Who won?

  • Total voters
    852
TheLastEmperorReurns said:
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
Click to expand...
Can you please do one of these breakdowns for GSP/Hendricks if you have time. 48-47 GSP or 48-47 Hendricks both are acceptable although I scored round 1 for the champ.
 
Swarthy said:
It really wasn’t 10-8 is utter domination with zero resistance if r5 was a 10-8 then so was round 1.

Neither of them was a 10-8
Click to expand...

The technical definition of a 10-8 round did not change: when one fighter wins by a large margin. But the specifications of what exactly comprises a "large margin" did.

The new criteria make clear that a fighter doesn't have to steamroll, or as McCarthy put it, "almost murder" the opponent, for all 5 minutes to earn a 10-8. In fact, "If a fighter has little to no offensive output during a 5 minute round, it should be normal for the judge to award the losing fighter 8 points instead of 9."


The unwritten old criteria of a 10-8 round was dominance and damage (i.e., impact). The new criteria add a third possible element: duration. If two of these three elements are present in a round, a 10-8 "shall be seriously considered." If all three are present, a 10-8 "shall be awarded." In the latter case, the judge has no leeway. They are obligated to score a 10-8.

Romero did all 3, it was a 10-8
 
I really don't like Yoel but via the new rules he won that fight by a point it was close but he came the closest to finishing that fight multiple times. You should not get points for "surviving".
 
I just really cant give the nod to someone that got wobbled and dropped more than once in this fight whereas the other did not.
 
det_regnar_på_vår_kärlek said:
A 10-7 for the fifth round is a much more reasonable score than 10-9. Props for Whittaker for returning from the dead, but he was dropped, absorbed a ton of damage, turtled up and didn't do anything of significance to make up for what happened. When he was turtled up fight could have been stopped and nobody would be able to complain. If that's not a 10-8, then it's better to just get rid of 10-8s.
Click to expand...

Seriously, the judges thought Whittaker won his rounds with equal dominance as the round Romero won, ridiculous.
 
I have yet to rewatch the fight, but I do recall Yoel being ridiculously inactive in round 1. Does anyone here think there may be an argument for 10-8 to RW? Will rewatch tonight.
 
lol at this Poll, Whittaker won that shit and he fought with one hand for 4 rds. Yoel came in over weight and even though he had a good rd 3 and 5....he still lost 1 2 and 4 you fucking salty little bitches.
 
Jim said:
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.
Click to expand...
There have been 10-10 rounds.

They’re just rare.
 
MIC said:
I have yet to rewatch the fight, but I do recall Yoel being ridiculously inactive in round 1. Does anyone here think there may be an argument for 10-8 to RW? Will rewatch tonight.
Click to expand...
He was inactive but not a 10-8 by any means...the scores by two judges were accurate...48-47 RW....one judge actually gave rd 4 to Yoel lol which is fucking preposterous.
 
I judge based on damage so i gave it to Yoel. Obviously a close fight.
 
GTS said:
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......
Click to expand...
Anyone using a 10-10 or 10-7 round to support their opinion loses big cred points.
 
Lavitz said:
There have been 10-10 rounds.

They’re just rare.
Click to expand...
Where? Show me some from the last 10 years? You can't! I remember one in 2006 Bonnar-Evans on one judges scorecard. That's it.
 
USA!USA! said:
Whittaker-Romero:

10-9

10-9

9-10

10-9

8-10

47-47 DRAW
Click to expand...
thats pretty much where i came out - romero needs to win by stoppage if hes going to relax and not do much for such a long portion of the fight, but romero won the rounds he won by a very wide margin, so that prob sways people
 
I'd score it a draw, but I could maybe see 48-47 Whittaker if you make Round 5 a 10-9. Romero clearly lost rounds 1,2, and 4. He also won R3, but Whittaker still got in a lot of good shots in that round despite the knockdown. So that's a 10-9 round. Round 4 was all Whittaker until that little wobble in the last 30 seconds, but he immediately recovered. 10-9 Whittaker. Round 5 is where I think it's probably a 10-8 for Romero. There's no way Romero won under the scoring criteria - he gets a draw at best.
 
MIC said:
I have yet to rewatch the fight, but I do recall Yoel being ridiculously inactive in round 1. Does anyone here think there may be an argument for 10-8 to RW? Will rewatch tonight.
Click to expand...
No. He was getting a feel for the range and timing. Took some shots but nothing major. He wasnt dominated.
 
Does no-one think Whittaker won Round one 10-8? Romero just stood there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,568
Messages
58,447,780
Members
176,040
Latest member
ValeTudoPrideUFC

Share this page

Back
Top