Damage based scoring and what constitutes a 10-8 round

[Portland8242]

A friend of mine in the gym was having an interesting debate in the gym with me today.

He claims that 10-8 rounds need to be more all encompassing with how they are scored. He brought up the Romero - Whittaker 2 fight, specifically round 2, and said that should have been a 10-8 round. I thought he was being ridiculous but here's the thing - Whittaker damaged Romero's face for life in that round, visible damage is the MAIN CRITERIA in scoring and Whittaker delivered an immense amount of visible damage via a horrible orbital break on Romero. But I kind of objected with the whole domination thing, you can't have a 10-8 round if you don't dominate the round and although Rob did win that round - he didn't dominate it. He says though that in the scoring criteria it's visible damage above all else, so "domination" shouldn't matter if you deal an immense amount of visible damage.

What does sherdog think? Should things like broken noses and orbitals and stuff be factored more heavily into scoring 10-8 rounds since it's undeniable visible damage?

 

[Sticko]

Visible damage is not the main criterion though, that's just not correct

It's a factor but in no way are cuts or bruises the main criterion

 

[BreatheSherBro]

Some people scratch, bleed, and bruise easy. A visible damage component would be too subjective.

GSP looked rough after a lot of the fights he dominated.

 

[AmericanMMA]

I don’t believe that conversation happened nor do I believe you went to the gym.

 

[Portland8242]

Visible damage is not the main criterion though, that's just not correct

It's a factor but in no way are cuts or bruises the main criterion

It's not?

Before every single one of the Weasle's videos he reiterates very heavily that visible damage is above all else.

 

[Portland8242]

I don’t believe that conversation happened nor do I believe you went to the gym.

Believe it or not some Sherdoggers do things outside of sherdogging

 

[arcadeperfect]

It's tough since a 10-8 is much easier to score in boxing. In boxing 10-8s are given out with a knockdown. In MMA that's not the case, it's a lot more subjective.

 

[HuskySamoan]

It's tough since a 10-8 is much easier to score in boxing. In boxing 10-8s are given out with a knockdown. In MMA that's not the case, it's a lot more subjective.

It's an integral flaw in boxing scoring that isn't such a big deal because there's so many more rounds to go off of. The issue is sometimes guys get caught clean and drop to their asses in boxing but maybe there out of position and never actually rocked? Still a 10-8 if ruled by the ref. Meanwhile guys can get rocked badly but stay up, hurt worse than the guy who was dropped and still win the round or only lose a 10-9. At least with MMA when guys are knocked down you get context because the fight doesn't pause and things can be scored more intelligently (theoretically, our judges are morons).

As for @Portland8242 they keep fiddling with what the criteria is lately, I think they now have brought back more value to grappling in how it's worded again because things got screwy with damage. Visible damage is moronic though, if you gash my eye with a knee and I break down your body with strikes, one is painfully visible but in the 4th round when you're moving in slow motion and I'm as fresh as a daisy just covered in blood...well the shots I landed to your body obviously were more significant damage than your knee even though not visible. That's actually the issue, tears, breaks, concussions, body damage etc isn't visible but it's 4/5 far more significant than bruising and lacerations...those are often superficial to the outcome of a fight.

 

[You Will Vote For Dreyga]

A friend of mine in the gym was having an interesting debate in the gym with me today.

He claims that 10-8 rounds need to be more all encompassing with how they are scored. He brought up the Romero - Whittaker 2 fight, specifically round 2, and said that should have been a 10-8 round. I thought he was being ridiculous but here's the thing - Whittaker damaged Romero's face for life in that round, visible damage is the MAIN CRITERIA in scoring and Whittaker delivered an immense amount of visible damage via a horrible orbital break on Romero. But I kind of objected with the whole domination thing, you can't have a 10-8 round if you don't dominate the round and although Rob did win that round - he didn't dominate it. He says though that in the scoring criteria it's visible damage above all else, so "domination" shouldn't matter if you deal an immense amount of visible damage.

What does sherdog think? Should things like broken noses and orbitals and stuff be factored more heavily into scoring 10-8 rounds since it's undeniable visible damage?

The three criterion for a 10-8

1)Damage
2)Duration
3)Domination

You need at least two of the three to get scored a 10-8

 

[arcadeperfect]

It's an integral flaw in boxing scoring that isn't such a big deal because there's so many more rounds to go off of. The issue is sometimes guys get caught clean and drop to their asses in boxing but maybe there out of position and never actually rocked? Still a 10-8 if ruled by the ref. Meanwhile guys can get rocked badly but stay up, hurt worse than the guy who was dropped and still win the round or only lose a 10-9. At least with MMA when guys are knocked down you get context because the fight doesn't pause and things can be scored more intelligently (theoretically, our judges are morons).

As for @Portland8242 they keep fiddling with what the criteria is lately, I think they now have brought back more value to grappling in how it's worded again because things got screwy with damage. Visible damage is moronic though, if you gash my eye with a knee and I break down your body with strikes, one is painfully visible but in the 4th round when you're moving in slow motion and I'm as fresh as a daisy just covered in blood...well the shots I landed to your body obviously were more significant damage than your knee even though not visible. That's actually the issue, tears, breaks, concussions, body damage etc isn't visible but it's 4/5 far more significant than bruising and lacerations...those are often superficial to the outcome of a fight.

Yeah some guys have paper skin that just tears up like GSP. Then you have people like Hendo who seem to never bleed.

 

[AmericanMMA]

Believe it or not some Sherdoggers do things outside of sherdogging

Yes, masterbate ferociously.

Had to started your story with you and your friend doing that when the 10-8 conversation started I totally would believe your story.

 

[Liverkick-king56]

Issue with 10-8 rounds in MMA is 5 minutes is a long time and MMA judges suck at scoring rounds for the proper person as it is. I think Jacoby vs Murzkanov is a perfect example of both fighters earning 10-8 rounds in rounds 1 and 3

I think a round of full control should warrant a 10-8 like Burns vs Masvidal round 3 and Sandhagen/Chito round 1 should've been 10-8's IMO. Damage throughout a round seems far too overlooked in general where big massive moments seem to be the only way judges score 10-8 rounds making them extremely rare unless someone survives murder.

 

[HuskySamoan]

Yeah some guys have paper skin that just tears up like GSP. Then you have people like Hendo who seem to never bleed.

Plus some people have lighter skin and bruise visibly while others have darker skin and the bruising isn't visible at all. It's one reason why I think commentators are morons you'll have a Japanese fighter with the skintone of milk and they'll remark on how there's redness on his leg from a kick..I'm pretty sure a cat can brush their tail against that guy and leave a red mark.

Some facial features definitely cause for easier cutting and swelling than others, just like some noses break easier than others. I was always glad I had a flat nose, even if it broke people wouldn't notice...it's no wonder a guy like Rory's nose broke in 3 places vs Lawler.

This is a reality to fighting though, there's so many potential advantages and disadvantages to genetics and what-not. My point isn't who bruises easier or cuts easier, it's just that much of the time bruising, swelling and cuts in and of themselves are not indicative of significant damage. A grazing elbow doesn't cause significant damage and if the cut isn't impairing the fighters ability to see, it's largely superficial. A swollen eye is the same, unless it begins to impede vision or seriously effect the way a fighter takes a shot to the area, it is in and of itself mostly superficial rather than significant. However a smashed nose in Rorys case was significant even though it was due to having a boney schnozz which isn't Rorys fault...it doesn't really matter. Just like if you've got a pronounced bony brow like Yadong and Cory splits it wide open with an elbow, if it causes you to not be able to continue fighting...sucks that you have those physical features I guess.

 

[WolverReem]

10-8 is yoel vs Whittaker 2 multiple rounds
What's not a 10-8 is Aljo vs Yan 2

 

[SeattleFightFan]

A friend of mine in the gym was having an interesting debate in the gym with me today.

He claims that 10-8 rounds need to be more all encompassing with how they are scored. He brought up the Romero - Whittaker 2 fight, specifically round 2, and said that should have been a 10-8 round. I thought he was being ridiculous but here's the thing - Whittaker damaged Romero's face for life in that round, visible damage is the MAIN CRITERIA in scoring and Whittaker delivered an immense amount of visible damage via a horrible orbital break on Romero. But I kind of objected with the whole domination thing, you can't have a 10-8 round if you don't dominate the round and although Rob did win that round - he didn't dominate it. He says though that in the scoring criteria it's visible damage above all else, so "domination" shouldn't matter if you deal an immense amount of visible damage.

What does sherdog think? Should things like broken noses and orbitals and stuff be factored more heavily into scoring 10-8 rounds since it's undeniable visible damage?

First of all, "...visible damage is the MAIN CRITERIA in scoring..." that's wrong. What you're probably trying to say is that immediate damage is scored higher than cumulative damage. (EDIT) Simply put, wobbling someone > bruising and bloodying someone.

I agree with you. He was winning, he shut his eye....but he didn't "10-8 dominate" him.

But subjectivity is built into the system, so your friend is welcome to his opinion. He cannot be wrong, per se, but it's likely less than 20% of other fans agree with him, which would make his opinion an outlier.

There is also precedent that we should rely on, and there is plenty of precedent to suggest your friend's opinion is wrong has no leg to stand on. Just ask him to provide 3 other examples of 10-8 rounds like this one, to help support his argument. He won't.

Here's what Illinois AC says: "b) A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins a round by a wide margin and damages his opponent".

Yep, nice and vague!

And according to this article, Illinois was in fact using the new unified rules for this bout.

 

[jeff7b9]

It's not?

Before every single one of the Weasle's videos he reiterates very heavily that visible damage is above all else.

>>> Damage which contributes to a potential finish. <<<

"Visible" is not a factor of particularly high regard, and as such superficial damage should not be given more credit than the amount for which that damage could contribute towards finishing the fight.

Small cut, not bleeding into the eye, not that big of a deal, worth less than a punch that briefly staggers opponent.
Big gaping cut that could result in a doctor stoppage, big deal, that is significant damage contributing to a potential finish.

Impairment would be basically the highest form of damage, be that in the form of a limp, loss of balance, knockdown, clear fatigue, etc.

 

[jeff7b9]

First of all, "...visible damage is the MAIN CRITERIA in scoring..." that's wrong. What you're probably trying to say is that immediate damage is scored higher than cumulative damage. (EDIT) Simply put, wobbling someone > bruising and bloodying someone.

I agree with you. He was winning, he shut his eye....but he didn't "10-8 dominate" him.

But subjectivity is built into the system, so your friend is welcome to his opinion. He cannot be wrong, per se, but it's likely less than 20% of other fans agree with him, which would make his opinion an outlier.

There is also precedent that we should rely on, and there is plenty of precedent to suggest your friend's opinion is wrong has no leg to stand on. Just ask him to provide 3 other examples of 10-8 rounds like this one, to help support his argument. He won't.

Here's what Illinois AC says: "b) A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant wins a round by a wide margin and damages his opponent".

Yep, nice and vague!

And according to this article, Illinois was in fact using the new unified rules for this bout.

The other way I have heard it described, is the "3 Ds"

Dominance
Damage
Duration

As I recall, a round in which a fighter achieves 2 of the 3 should be considered as a possible 10-8.


Also of note, the recent changes stipulate a trajectory leading to more 10-8s being awarded and less necessity for a near death experience in order to achieve a 10-8 score.


It is a very tricky subject what with so many different athletics commissions and updates and changes occurring at different times, and the updates are published separate from the overall rules so you need to piece the whole picture together.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

The other way I have heard it described, is the "3 Ds"

Dominance
Damage
Duration

As I recall, a round in which a fighter achieves 2 of the 3 should be considered as a possible 10-8.


Also of note, the recent changes stipulate a trajectory leading to more 10-8s being awarded and less necessity for a near death experience in order to achieve a 10-8 score.


It is a very tricky subject what with so many different athletics commissions and updates and changes occurring at different times, and the updates are published separate from the overall rules so you need to piece the whole picture together.

Ya, the problem is that the precision of the language just doesn't exist. Which makes it perfect forum fodder. Especially for Americans who are used to American Football, which has an atypically specific rule book.

Here's what ABC has to say about it, and this is probably the best thing to go by, even thought it's totally different than the Illinois AC that I sourced above.

10–8 Round

A 10 – 8 Round in MMA is where one fighter wins the round by a large margin. A 10 – 8 round in MMA is not the most common score a judge will render, but it is absolutely essential to the evolution of the sport and the fairness to the fighters that judges understand and effectively utilize the score of 10 – 8. A score of 10 – 8 does not require a fighter to dominate their opponent for 5 minutes of a round. The score of 10 – 8 is utilized by the judge when the judge sees verifiable actions on the part of either fighter. Judges shall ALWAYS give a score of 10 – 8 when the judge has established that one fighter has dominated the action of the round, had duration of the domination and also impacted their opponent with either effective strikes or effective grappling maneuvers that have diminished the abilities of their opponent. Judges must CONSIDER giving the score of 10 – 8 when a fighter shows dominance in the round even though no impactful scoring against the opponent was achieved. MMA is an offensive based sport. No scoring is given for defensive maneuvers. Using smart, tactically sound defensive maneuvers allows the fighter to stay in the fight and to be competitive. Dominance of a round can be seen in striking when the losing fighter continually attempts to defend, with no counters or reaction taken when openings present themselves. Dominance in the grappling phase can be seen by fighters taking DOMINANT POSITIONS in the fight and utilizing those positions to attempt fight ending submissions or attacks. If a fighter has little to no offensive output during a 5 minute round, it should be normal for the judge to consider awarding the losing fighter 8 points instead of 9. Judges must CONSIDER giving the score of 10 – 8 when a fighter IMPACTS their opponent significantly in a round even though they do not dominate the action. Effectiveness in striking or grappling which leads to a diminishing of a fighter’s energy, confidence, abilities and spirit. All of these come as a direct result of negative impact. When a fighter is hurt with strikes, showing a lack of control or ability, these can be defining moments in the fight. If a judge sees that a fighter has been significantly damaged in the round the judge should CONSIDER the score of 10 – 8.
​

I'm sorta curious where you got the "3 D's" from. My guess is that someone more educated than us on the topic, tried to dumb it down for us, on a podcast or something.

 

[nonoob]

The three criterion for a 10-8

1)Damage
2)Duration
3)Domination

You need at least two of the three to get scored a 10-8

All depend on the knowledge, competence, and honesty, with no ulterior or financial motives. Zero known repercussions seen to those scoring.

 

[Black Blood]

There is art and there is science, and scoring a 10-8 is more on the art side right now. Kinda like obscenity; I'll know it when I see it.

I think a 10-8 is where you've got nothing positive to say about the other guy other than 'Wow, he is tough.' 10-9 is you pick a winner, 10-8 is a sustained beating, and 10-7 should only happen if you get your ass kicked and lose a point.