My Honest Assessment Of Whittaker vs Romero

Wait. 10-8 whittaker in the 1st? Just no.

9-10
9-10
10-9
9-10
10-8

The best argument to deviate from my card(and that of many); 10-9 4th to Romero based on the Bambi dance at the end of the round. 10-8 3rd Romero on the kd and having Whittaker in genuine peril. No genuine argument really exists for any Whittaker 10-8.

  1. a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
From what I remember, Whit had many more strikes than Yoel, he was clearly the aggresor and he dominated every minute. Romero just stood there and took Whittaker's shots, thinking about his cardio first. So if you score 5 as a 8-10, why not score 1 as a 10-8?

Not to mention about "if you wanna beat the champ..."
 
Romero was never visibly hurt by Whittaker. Whittaker was knocked down three times and nearly finished at one point.
He was knocked down TWICE fyi

And at no point was Whittaker ever actually close to being stopped

Seriously, when people say shit like this, I don't if they are trolling, or if they never actually saw that fight and are just jumping on the banwagon


Anyway

I truly don't get this narrative that the 5th round was a 10-8

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


Under no criteria was that a 10-8

It wasn't a round where a fighter had total and absolute full control from dominant positions for the entirety of the round ala Shogun's round 5 against Hendo

It wasnt a round where a fighter was dropped numerous and had an absolute striking clinic put on them ala Conor's striking clinic on Nate in round 2 of their rematch


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 idiots were brainwashed by Rogan's insanely biased commentary


The only correct decision was Whittaker 48-47. Judges were bang on spot on with this fight
 
Romero was never visibly hurt by Whittaker. Whittaker was knocked down three times and nearly finished at one point.

Rofl lol Romero had 2 knock downs and Whittaker recovered almost straight away then Romero wobbled Rob again.

Rob had KD with a kick and wobbled Romero with a Punch and a Elbows.

At no point was either of them nearly finished.
 
He was knocked down TWICE fyi

And at no point was Whittaker ever actually close to being stopped

Seriously, when people say shit like this, I don't if they are trolling, or if they never actually saw that fight and are just jumping on the banwagon


Anyway

I truly don't get this narrative that the 5th round was a 10-8

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


Under no criteria was that a 10-8

It wasn't a round where a fighter had total and absolute full control from dominant positions for the entirety of the round ala Shogun's round 5 against Hendo

It wasnt a round where a fighter was dropped numerous and had an absolute striking clinic put on them ala Conor's striking clinic on Nate in round 2 of their rematch


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 idiots were brainwashed by Rogan's insanely biased commentary


The only correct decision was Whittaker 48-47. Judges were bang on spot on with this fight
Rofl lol Romero had 2 knock downs and Whittaker recovered almost straight away then Romero wobbled Rob again.

Rob had KD with a kick and wobbled Romero with a Punch and a Elbows.

At no point was either of them nearly finished.

Whittaker was curled up in a fetal position for a few seconds before recuperating and getting back to his feet. I'd call that pretty close to being stopped.
 
100%.

To me it was very clear. Whittaker 1,2 & 4. Yoel round 3 but definitely not a 10-8.

So it comes down to the 5th. Obviously Yoel's round, if 10-9 then Whittaker wins, 10-8 and it's a draw.
Thats how I feel. I also believe the reason it was scored 10-9 is because prior to getting dropped Whittaker landed. Whittaker also defended and attempted offense of his own. Had Yoel started the onslaught earlier, the fight would have been scored differently. I am not a judge don't flame me.... That is just my assessment of the fight amd why the nod was given to Knux!
 
Whittaker was curled up in a fetal position for a few seconds before recuperating and getting back to his feet. I'd call that pretty close to being stopped.

Covered up his head and started scrambling LOL you have no idea what nearly finished is.
 
Covered up his head and started scrambling LOL you have no idea what nearly finished is.

Yes, covering up your head and going into that fetal position while face down is usually a sign that you're done. There's been a million or so fights that have ended that way. He was close to being stopped.
 
  1. a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
From what I remember, Whit had many more strikes than Yoel, he was clearly the aggresor and he dominated every minute. Romero just stood there and took Whittaker's shots, thinking about his cardio first. So if you score 5 as a 8-10, why not score 1 as a 10-8?

Not to mention about "if you wanna beat the champ..."
Because if you scoere rd1 10-8, rd3 is clearly 8-10. and the 5th is 7-10.

10-8 rd1. SMH
 
Well if the scoring system is applied correctly, 10-9s don't have significant disparity from one another (i.e. one 10-9 is about equally dominant for the winning fighter as another) and ditto for 10-8s, 10-7s etc.

When that's the case, the round by round and the overall score roughly even out.


I've suggested before that the best scoring system is where the first round is scored such that the remaining rounds can be scored relative to it. So the first round, if it's 10-8 let's say, sets the definition of a 10-8 for the rest of the fight. A round about halfway as dominant as the first is a 10-9. A round more dominant by the same halfway margin is a 10-7. A round twice as dominant still is a 10-6.

If the first round is won by someone by a margin slim enough that there's no significant intermediate step, it's a 10-9 and again it defines what one point is worth. So the next rounds are compared to it, and scored accordingly.

An even first round (or, I've also argued, a round that's predominantly a "feeling out" round where nothing significant happens and neither guy is taking clear steps to win it) would be a 10-10. If the first round's even, it's scored 10-10 and the second round plays the role the first normally plays.

A first round that's so dominant that you can see two clear intermediate steps between it and an even round is 10-7.

Generally, a first round with a clear winner where the judge can compare the round to an even round and see a need for an intermediate score would be a 10-8, and this would be one of the most frequent scores for the first round. Which is why I used it in the first example.


I think this fixes two big problems:

First, the fights where two rounds could go either way and the other one is clearly won by a fighter (but not enough to make it a 10-8 under current scoring) are some of the most common bad decisions, because two judges have the same guy winning both close rounds, and even though the other fighter clearly won the overall fight, he loses. In such a fight with my scoring, you'd have at worst a draw.

Second, and most importantly, it makes the fight scored by round have almost the exact same result as scoring the fight as a whole, but would eliminate the "recency bias" (over-weighting action that happens later in the round) that used to result in bad judging when fights were judged as a whole. This is most important because that's what a good numerical scoring system does -- it makes the round by round score more analog, making the final score more like a well-judged fight scored in its entirety.

The problem with the current scoring is that it's too digital, and effectively binary with 10-8s being so rare (and 10-10s rarer still.)

Which reminds me of a third advantage: the fear that 10-8s or 10-10s will result in draws is mitigated by the fact that we use a more diverse scoring range, so we aren't as married to odd-numbered scores to have decisions.
This sounds great actually.
To bad no one relevant is gonna read it or try to implement it.
 
GTFO with 10-7.

Whittaker knocked Yoel down in that round with a kick. Yes he was off balance but that right there is enough for it not be a 10-7.

A 10-7 round can be awarded if the judge thought the ref could have stopped the fight at some point. That was arguably the case when Romero dropped Whittaker, took his back and had him turtled up. Personally I scored that round 10-8, but a 10-7 is definitely justifiable under the current rules.
 
Watching it again have a draw. Found 5 10-8. Round 3 was not a 10-8 because Whittaker landed some really hard elbows and high kicks
 
Because if you scoere rd1 10-8, rd3 is clearly 8-10. and the 5th is 7-10.

10-8 rd1. SMH

Only fanboys are assessing the 1st round as 10-8 to Whittaker, mainly based on fightmetric stats that make Romero look bad in that round. Romero didn't absorb significant damage, wasn't dropped, wasn't put on rubber legs, was never in danger, fight was never close to being finished. There's simply no way to justify the 1st round as 10-8. In fact, the most significant strike of the 1st round (imo) was a leg kick that Romero landed in the end of the round that broke Whittaker's stance.
 
A 10-7 round can be awarded if the judge thought the ref could have stopped the fight at some point. That was arguably the case when Romero dropped Whittaker, took his back and had him turtled up. Personally I scored that round 10-8, but a 10-7 is definitely justifiable under the current rules.

I thought when Whittaker stalled out a few seconds on all fours eating shots that come under the arm pit, that it was real close to being stopped.
 
Because if you scoere rd1 10-8, rd3 is clearly 8-10. and the 5th is 7-10.

10-8 rd1. SMH

Like someone said, Whittaker landed some good shots in round 3. It wasn't such a dominance as round 1.

And round 5 a 7-10?

  1. a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
By this, I understand that it is a 5 minutes complete beatdown, not "he got dropped and punched until he recovered"
 
Like someone said, Whittaker landed some good shots in round 3. It wasn't such a dominance as round 1.

And round 5 a 7-10?

  1. a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
By this, I understand that it is a 5 minutes complete beatdown, not "he got dropped and punched until he recovered"

Damage, dominance, duration. Just can't be reasonably applied to round 1.
 
Did not read. Only interested in your dishonest assessment.
 
Why didn't Romero fight in the first 2 rounds. He jacked around for ten minutes
 
Back
Top