Fabio Maldonada is fighting for the NABF HW title Dec 1st

Yeah, that's not a reasonable argument. If round 1 wasn't minimum a 10-8, then 10-8s don't exist in MMA.
The fight was investigated after all by the WMMAA with 3 unofficial independent judges to re-score the fight (due to Maldonado's conflict of interest accusations, which were never actually proven, and of course the scoring controversy). All 3 independent judges had it a draw (28-28) where evidently he did get the 10-8. The unofficial scores that I posted had 4 draws and 1 card in favor of Fedor where I included a Play-by-Play from a Bloody Elbow journalist that covered the action. Like I said from the beginning, it was a drawish fight. Maldonado won the first round big. How big is the question (a 10-7? No, especially not in a 3 rounder). Judges hesitate to hand out 10-8's as it is but now that's changing due to the recent Unified Rules changes that provide much more clarity when scoring them in particular. Prior to these changes I've seen many rounds that I was sure would be scored a 10-8 that weren't scored as such, and again, particularly in 3 rounders this ended up being the case. It's not surprising when you think about it given the limited number of rounds they have to work with and the risk associated with putting too much weight into a given round.

You wanted his reasoning so here it is. Why did Tim Burke of Bloody Elbow score Round 1 a 10-9 for Maldonado rather than what many believe should've been a 10-8?

The guy never tweeted him back because he likely accepted his argument as reasonable.
 
Last edited:
I suppose round 1 of Guida vs Sanchez was only a 10-9 too because Clay was able to land shots on Diego
 
You can argue a draw, but there is no reasonable argument that Fedor won.

I disagree with that. If you are talking PRIDE scoring, sure, but we use the 10 point must system now.

Round 1 - Fabio clearly won and it should have been 10-8. However, Fedor did come back and a 10-9 could be argued.
Round - Fedor 10-9
Round - Fedor 10-9

It's either 28-28 or 29-28 Fedor. There is no argument for Fabio unless you thought that was a 10-7. He clearly lost the last 2 rounds.
 
I disagree with that. If you are talking PRIDE scoring, sure, but we use the 10 point must system now.

Round 1 - Fabio clearly won and it should have been 10-8. However, Fedor did come back and a 10-9 could be argued.
Round - Fedor 10-9
Round - Fedor 10-9

It's either 28-28 or 29-28 Fedor. There is no argument for Fabio unless you thought that was a 10-7. He clearly lost the last 2 rounds.

The fight was investigated after all by the WMMAA with 3 unofficial independent judges to re-score the fight (due to Maldonado's conflict of interest accusations, which were never actually proven, and of course the scoring controversy). All 3 independent judges had it a draw (28-28) where evidently he did get the 10-8. The unofficial scores that I posted had 4 draws and 1 card in favor of Fedor where I included a Play-by-Play from a Bloody Elbow journalist that covered the action. Like I said from the beginning, it was a drawish fight. Maldonado won the first round big. How big is the question (a 10-7? No, especially not in a 3 rounder). Judges hesitate to hand out 10-8's as it is but now that's changing due to the recent Unified Rules changes that provide much more clarity when scoring them in particular. Prior to these changes I've seen many rounds that I was sure would be scored a 10-8 that weren't scored as such, and again, particularly in 3 rounders this ended up being the case. It's not surprising when you think about it given the limited number of rounds they have to work with and the risk associated with putting too much weight into a given round.

You wanted his reasoning so here it is. Why did Tim Burke of Bloody Elbow score Round 1 a 10-9 for Maldonado rather than what many believe should've been a 10-8?

The guy never tweeted him back because he likely accepted his argument as reasonable.


If you don't think round 1 was at minimum a 10-8, then you don't believe in awarding 10-8 rounds. It's that simple.
 
If you don't think round 1 was at minimum a 10-8, then you don't believe in awarding 10-8 rounds. It's that simple.

My point was even if it was a 10-8, the whole "at best Fedor got a draw" makes no sense. Like I said, the fight should have been a draw. Not sure how that was a 10-7. If it's not a 10-7, then it's impossible for Fabio to have won.
 
The fight was investigated after all by the WMMAA with 3 unofficial independent judges to re-score the fight (due to Maldonado's conflict of interest accusations, which were never actually proven, and of course the scoring controversy). All 3 independent judges had it a draw (28-28) where evidently he did get the 10-8. The unofficial scores that I posted had 4 draws and 1 card in favor of Fedor where I included a Play-by-Play from a Bloody Elbow journalist that covered the action. Like I said from the beginning, it was a drawish fight. Maldonado won the first round big. How big is the question (a 10-7? No, especially not in a 3 rounder). Judges hesitate to hand out 10-8's as it is but now that's changing due to the recent Unified Rules changes that provide much more clarity when scoring them in particular. Prior to these changes I've seen many rounds that I was sure would be scored a 10-8 that weren't scored as such, and again, particularly in 3 rounders this ended up being the case. It's not surprising when you think about it given the limited number of rounds they have to work with and the risk associated with putting too much weight into a given round.

You wanted his reasoning so here it is. Why did Tim Burke of Bloody Elbow score Round 1 a 10-9 for Maldonado rather than what many believe should've been a 10-8?

The guy never tweeted him back because he likely accepted his argument as reasonable.


What on earth does the amount of rounds have to do with how dominant someone was in it?

If you get your ass kicked badly and knocked down several times, then you lose the round big, regardless if it is a 1 round fight, or a 15 round fight. That is how scoring fights has worked for 100+ years.

And the fucking tweet shit, fucking GTFO, he didnt reply to a tweet so he must have accepted, that is some fucking warped fucking modern bullshit you are bringing to the table with that argument.
 
If you don't think round 1 was at minimum a 10-8, then you don't believe in awarding 10-8 rounds. It's that simple.
I never said it didn't deserve a 10-8, I scored the fight for Maldonaldo. I said you don't always get one scored. I think your idea of being unreasonable is ignorant. That other poster gave an example of another should've been 10-8 round that wasn't on two of the judges cards (Sanchez vs Guida). It was in a 3 rounder as I suspected.
 
My point was even if it was a 10-8, the whole "at best Fedor got a draw" makes no sense. Like I said, the fight should have been a draw. Not sure how that was a 10-7. If it's not a 10-7, then it's impossible for Fabio to have won.

You could argue that it was a 10-7, actually. Fedor was badly hurt for more than 3 minutes. There is more of an argument that it was 10-7 than there was that it was 10-9.
 
I never said it didn't deserve a 10-8, I scored the fight for Maldonaldo. I said you don't always get one scored. I think your idea of being unreasonable is ignorant. That other poster gave an example of another should've been 10-8 round that wasn't on two of the judges cards (Sanchez vs Guida). It was in a 3 rounder as I suspected.

It's completely unreasonable to argue that it was a 10-9 round.
 
What is this NABF that you speak of?
 
What on earth does the amount of rounds have to do with how dominant someone was in it?

If you get your ass kicked badly and knocked down several times, then you lose the round big, regardless if it is a 1 round fight, or a 15 round fight. That is how scoring fights has worked for 100+ years.

And the fucking tweet shit, fucking GTFO, he didnt reply to a tweet so he must have accepted, that is some fucking warped fucking modern bullshit you are bringing to the table with that argument.
You can't even follow a simple conversation. First of all, the tweet was on MMADecisions.com as one journalist's score and he was asked why he didn't score a round a 10-8 in a fight you never saw because we're not talking boxing we're talking MMA. Lay off the bottle.
 
It's completely unreasonable to argue that it was a 10-9 round.
Yes, but in practice a 10-8 isn't always scored as a 10-8 in MMA. That's been my argument from the beginning.
When the original Unified Rules were written in 2001, a 10-8 round was defined as when a fighter “overwhelmingly dominates.” In 2012, it was changed to “wins by a large margin.” While this seemed to relax the standards for giving a 10-8 score, it still wasn’t terribly clear when to apply it in practice. Judges were taught that a “large margin” is when one fighter has Dominance and Damage in a round, but the written rule itself was open to wide interpretation.
The new Unified Rules changes specifically for scoring 10-8 rounds. It was needed.
Two top judges explain MMA’s new 10-8 scoring criteria
 
Last edited:
You can't even follow a simple conversation. First of all, the tweet was on MMADecisions.com as one journalist's score and he was asked why he didn't score a round a 10-8 in a fight you never saw because we're not talking boxing we're talking MMA. Lay off the bottle.

Nope, i saw the fight, and Fedor lost the first round big. If that isnt a 10-8/7 round in MMA, then you may as well not even bother to try and finish someone in a 3 round fight in fear of the rounds being scored purely because it is over 3 rounds, and not 5, 1, 4, 12, 15...it doesnt matter if you are arguing with that logic

Must be some shit title as I've never heard of it until now.

I almost fell for this.....almost....
 
Rivas is going to smash the shit out of Fabio.
 
Nope, i saw the fight, and Fedor lost the first round big. If that isnt a 10-8/7 round in MMA, then you may as well not even bother to try and finish someone in a 3 round fight in fear of the rounds being scored purely because it is over 3 rounds, and not 5, 1, 4, 12, 15...it doesnt matter if you are arguing with that logic
I'm glad we agree that Fedor did in fact lose the first round big (which I stated earlier). Not a single person in this thread has argued otherwise. Now, how big is the question. That first round realistically should've been scored a 10-8 by most observers. Having said that, MMA judges are reluctant to score 10-8's in the first place, much less 10-7 rounds, and this is nothing new at all. The consensus opinion of what a fighter actually deserved for their dominance in a round is a separate argument from what's common practice in the sport as a whole (as to what degree MMA judges tend to score dominant rounds in general).

As for the number of rounds logic, judges tend to exercise caution in weighing a round too heavily particularly in non-championship 3 round fights. In a 3 rounder if one fighter is hit with a 10-8 round by the judges then that would certainly hurt their chances of winning the fight on the cards more than it would in a 5 rounder because the impact is likely to be greater. The reason for this is simple, there are two more rounds for the trailing fighter to make up for the deficit in a 5 round fight. Here's a hypothetical 3 round situation - Fighter A clearly wins two rounds at 10-9 apiece while Fighter B has a 10-8 round scored in their favor. You now have a draw. Draws are meant to be avoided if possible which is why, in part, that MMA uses the 3 and 5 round formats. Both are odd numbers put in place to lessen the likelihood of a draw as the outcome should the fight go the distance.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top