Armchair judging 10-8 rounds.

[sss133]

Just a quick question. Most of us here will judge a fight we watch and have our own criteria.

My question is do you have a set criteria for giving a 10-8 Rd. Or does it change within the context of a fight?

 

[joeyjoejoe]

It takes an absolute ass kicking to earn a 10-8 in my book, if a fight is almost stopped due to carnage it gets a 10-8. But that’s just me lol

 

[SeaLevelMizugaki]

Ofcourse there is a set criteria.

If u have 5 more TDs or 50 more significant strikes u get an automatic 10-8.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

It takes an absolute ass kicking to earn a 10-8 in my book, fight is almost stopped due to carnage gets a 10-8. But that’s just me lol

but did your criteria change in Jan 2017, with the newly implemented unified rules?

answer: i try to follow the same criteria as judges. Shogun v Hendo round 5 today is undoubtedly a 10-8, whereas at the time of the fight it wasn't undoubtedly (it was merely controversial).

of course, like judges, it's still subjective. but clearly 10-8's are given more liberally today. they use to be exceptionally rare - now you see some almost every card.

 

[WinZip]

If it's a competitive round, even with a clear winner, that's 10-9. If it's not competitive at all, or at least the moments that matter are all in favor of one fighter, that's a 10-8. If the fight should have been stopped but the ref is too busy fantasizing about "warriors" to end the fight, that's a 10-7.

 

[kmelloh]

For me a 10-8 is like every round of Khabib Edson or the 5th of Woodley Wonderboy II. I think it has to be clear that someone won the round. A Knockdown or dominance on the ground. (1st round of that Volkanovski fight) I gave 10-8 Roy in that tournament fight.

 

[Ken Fresno]

For me it comes down to the gap in damage. When one guy is either the only one doing damage, or doing significantly more than the opponent.

Conor-Alvarez round 1 is one example where I would probably give a 10-8 that most judges wouldn't. Because Conor was the only one doing damage and Alvarez was hurt by the knockdowns.

But then in Nelson-Mitrione, I'm never giving Roy a 10-8, despite the amount of control and how close it was to getting stopped. Just a horrible position, but not enough damage for me. And Mitrione was winning on the feet.

I also consider the end of the round. If you have enough of a gap in damage to warrant a 10-8, but then the other guy ends the round on top or landing shots, no 10-8.

On the other hand, I would score a lot more 10-7s than we currently see. I think complete control while doing damage and winning every minute of a round should be 10-7. Like Khabib should have several 10-7s. So should Cain.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

just realized i didn't really answer the question.

IMO, we have little to go on other than historical precedence. it's not a point fighting competition - like amateur boxing, wrestling or karate - so we don't know how much GnP turns a 10-9 into a 10-8.

so we use historical precedence. MMA is like SCOTUS that way

so 2 years ago, a 10-8 was very rare, and all we had to judge it was how other 10-8's had gone prior.

similarly, today we know that 10-8's are given more freely, but it's still not a point competition, and so we still have nothing more to go on other than 10-8's prior to now (but after the new modified rules were implemented in Jan 2017).

it's not perfectly objective, because it cannot be (unless you want to make it a point competition). and it will probably morph as time goes on, because of simple information flow: as there are more 10-8's, we have more information on what constitutes a 10-8.

 

[Slapchoppin]

if you shoot a takedown it means you were panicking because you got hurt and therefore its an immediate 10-8 for your opponent and the ref should probably stop the fight

 

[Lint]

For me it shouldn't take much to score a 10-8, I always gave 10-8 more frequently than judges, even with the new rules (which seems to not have caught momentum thus far)

But when a fighter pin the other to the ground and do small/insignificant strikes just to keep the game on the mat are by no means even reason to score a 10-9. Khabib holding Barboza with his fierce hand while issuing silly jabs are an example, but the common case is someone pinning his adversary on the ground and jabbing the ribs just so the referee won't take the fight back up.

 

[bveb33]

I've never understood why they have a 10 point system but are so reluctant to use more than 2 of the numbers. Shouldn't a totally lopsided beating be 10-0? But as far as I know 10-6 is the lowest score ever in the UFC.

 

[Haijae]

Why is a 10-8 round considered "dominant" when it's a 10 point system? Why isn't a "dominant" round a 10-1?

 

[SeattleFightFan]

For me it shouldn't take much to score a 10-8, I always gave 10-8 more frequently than judges, even with the new rules (which seems to not have caught momentum thus far)

with all due respect, may i ask why?

i mean, if you've been giving 10-8's in your head 10x or 20x more often than judges (which was probably the case before the new rules in 2017, since they were almost never awarded then), then your scoring wouldn't jibe with official scoring very often. which makes it pretty unrealistic.

this same question could be asked (and i have asked) to the many fans who insist on judging an entire fight instead of using the 10 point system at all.

so i'm not trying to be insulting. i'm merely trying to understand the point of using an admittedly unrealistic judging system, even if it's only in your own head.

 

[AC1D1K]

if combatant musters little to zero offense a 10-8 is in order. 10 - 7 rounds should only be confirmed by the county coroner.

 

[Lint]

out of pure respect, may i ask why?

i mean, if you've been giving 10-8's in your head 10x or 20x more often than judges, then your scoring must not jibe with official scoring very often. which makes it unrealistic, does it not?

this same question coudl be asked to someone who insists on judging an entire fight instead of using the 10 point system at all. and many sherdoggers seem to do this.

so i'm not trying to be insulting. i'm merely trying to understand the point of using an admittedly unrealistic judging system, even if it's only in your own head.

I did not say that I gave it 10x more frequently than judges, but mostly because this is all so ethereal, it's hard to tell, I'm just saying that I do think 10-8s should be more frequent than what they are right now (even with the so called new rules)

Pretty often rounds end 10-9 because of a single significant punch or two or just a takedown with no further ground control. I understand that a bunch of punches won't score a 10-8, but let's face it things on UFC are faaaar from that point.

Take Alex Oliveira vs. Yancy Medeiros, for me that was a 10-7 Oliveira at first round, right?

 

[Myrddin Wild]

I do have my own criteria... because the 10/9 must system is flawed for 3 - 5 round fights... & I feel that a round in which someone dominates should not be scored the same as a round in which someone squeaks out a close round. So I agree with the new rule set that some of the commissions have adopted where 10/8 rounds are given more easily than those still stuck in the old system.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

I did not say that I gave it 10x more frequently than judges

ya, i knew i was putting words into your mouth. i didn't mean to.

I'm just saying that I do think 10-8s should be more frequent than what they are right now (even with the so called new rules)

but my main question still stands. if you think they should be granted more than they are, and in your head do it anyway, then you are using unrealistic judging criteria.

and i'm just wondering why is all.

you can read my posts above. they're probably as puzzling to you as yours is to me. but i try to gauge a round as if i were a judge, using the same criteria. it's heavily subjective regardless, and therefore scoring is all over the place especially for close fights.

but at least then when a round is really scored badly i feel confident that i'm judging by the same criteria that judges are. and people who judge fights instead of rounds cannot, and from what you're saying neither can you.

again, not trying to insult. just trying to understand the motivation.

 

[Gratis]

The 10-point round by round scoring is bullshit and they should judge the fight as a whole like they do in Japan.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

The 10-point round by round scoring is bullshit and they should judge the fight as a whole like they do in Japan.

i agree. but please, when a fight goes a way you don't like because you judged the fight in it's entirety and the rest of the world didn't (because, you know, unlike you, they are using the criteria that was agreed upon by all prior to the competition), then please don't complain

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If it's a competitive round, even with a clear winner, that's 10-9. If it's not competitive at all, or at least the moments that matter are all in favor of one fighter, that's a 10-8. If the fight should have been stopped but the ref is too busy fantasizing about "warriors" to end the fight, that's a 10-7.

I largely agree, but being competitive should not necessarily negate a 10-8. If that's what you mean by saying all the moments that matter go one way, then we're on the same page.