More on the 10-8 Round and Double Standards
by Luke Thomas on Jul 8, 2008 11:46 AM EDT
in News
45 comments
I've been trying to think of scenarios that seem far more deserving of 10-8s than the second round of Griffin vs. Jackson. I want to run this round by you folks and see if we can't hammer out why Griffin vs. Jackson round 2 is 10-8 and the first round of this fight is 10-9.
This fight is Forrest Petz vs. Brian Gassaway from the most recent Adrenaline MMA card. Both fighters are UFC veterans and both are certainly skilled competitors. The round in question for me is the first. Most of the round is largely uneventful as both fighters trade on the feet with Gassaway getting a little bit better of the exchanges with better hand speed and timing. However, at the 1:38 mark of the first round Gassaway floors Petz with a vicious left hook and rocks him badly. The fight can arguably be stopped but Petz manages to hang on. Gassaway then grounds and pounds as he passes to mount. Petz is trying to escape but gives up his back. Gassaway flattens him out and unloads a few more punches. Petz tries to roll back over and is mounted again after a failed rear naked choke attempt. Petz rolls again and gives up his back a second time. The round ends with Gassaway in back mount.
Here's the catch. Petz winds up winning the next two rounds and steals the fight. Why? Because all three judges scored the first round 10-9.
So, let's think about this here: Gassaway rocks Petz and almost closes the show, unloads unspectacular but important ground and pound and achieves both back mount and mount twice in the same round as Petz literally survives. That was 10-9.
Griffin, by contrast, hurts Rampage with a leg kick, but doesn't come close at all to stopping him with strikes. He attempts a few submissions and rides the mount, thereby neutralizing Rampage's offense, but doesn't inflict damage from the mount position. He does hold more dominant positions for longer, but doesn't come as close to Gassaway in stopping his opponent. That's 10-8.
What are we giving value to here? Who comes closer to finishing the fight or the duration of time spent dominating an opponent? How much does damage matter given that Petz was significantly closer to being stopped than Rampage? And why doesn't Gassway's balance of damage and positional control count as much as Forrest's uneven balance of less damage (the type that ends fights, not just stuns opponents) and more positional control?
0 recs |
45 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Fantastic example and comparison, Luke.
I saw the Adrenaline show live and thought Gassaway got robbed that round. Undoubtedly, that was more dominating than Rd 2 of Rampage-Griffin.
I believe Rd 1 of Gassaway-Petz is a 10-8 round (dominance plus damage) and Rd 2 of Rampage-Griffin is 10-9 (dominance, but lacking the requisite damage).
Personally, I believe Rd 1 of GSP-Hughes 3 or Rd 1 of GSP-Serra 2 are closer to a 10-8 round than the Forrest-Rampage Rd 2
by Hardcharger on Jul 8, 2008 11:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
To make it simple…a 10-8=major damage(close enough that stopping the fight wouldn’t be an injustice) and dominant position(s)
Kelvin Hunt
I'm like those boyz on the sidelines...cause I ain't playing...
by Tha Realness on Jul 8, 2008 12:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed completely. If anything, Forrest’s mount provided an opportunity for Rampage to rest his knee some.
I’m not against 10-8 rounds, even in cases like this, but it needs to somehow be more clearly defined and consistently used.
"They said you was hung!!"
"And they was RIGHT!"
by BJJDenver on Jul 8, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A show
The fact that Round 1 of the Gassaway fight was NOT a 10-8 round is a show. When watching it live, I thought for sure if was going to be stopped. That is as close to a stoppage as you can get.
Saying that, I think you need to consider the amount of points scored by the opponent. Rampage scored absolutely no points vs. Forrest while Petz scored some points for the 1st 3 minutes.
That’s how I can justify a 10-8 round for forrest even though it wasn’t close to a stoppage.
Lastly, until judges score more rounds 10-10, I think there should be a ton more 10-8 rounds to reward agression and fighters trying ti end figghts. It seems like fighters are not trying to end fights as much as they used to.
by !claw on Jul 8, 2008 12:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Luke, that is exactly my take on 10-8 rounds. I didn’t think Rampage would be punished for taking the round off to recover stamina & the knee. He was not in good shape but certainly didn’t get hurt & was only seriously threatened with a sub attempt once. Even when Forest mounted, he never got any big strikes off. He was very tentative to leave himself open to lose position & therefore didn’t take any risks.
by frickshun on Jul 8, 2008 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
But
Rampage scored zero points the entire round! The leg kick clearly caused damage and affected Rampage the remainder of the fight. That’s good enough damage and dominance considering the fact that Rampage scored zero points. If the leg kicks came 2 minutes into the round after they traded a few times, I can see a 10-9 more easily.
by !claw on Jul 8, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn’t matter how little the loser of the round scores.
There are rounds where both fighters stand up the entire round, and one guy lands some minor strikes, and the other lands nothing. That’s not a 10-8 round either.
Dominance + damage = 10-8. It’s not dominance + (lack of damage by opponent).
by Hardcharger on Jul 8, 2008 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, cuz Rampages leg wasn’t damaged at all …
Just say “I’m a Rampage mark” and get it over with.
by mythbuster on Jul 8, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He took a leg kick that hurt him. Much like Forrest took punches that hurt him, and put him to the mat in Rd 1.
Those kicks weren’t about to end the fight. You’re probably trying to give Forrest the dominance factor from the incredibly weak americana attempts as well.
Just admit you don’t understand what criteria constitute 10-8 rounds, and don’t know how to judge that criteria, and get it over with.
by Hardcharger on Jul 8, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK. please tell me how to define dominance. What if it’s an even round for 4:30 and then a fighter gets rocked and is beaten on the ground with major shots until the round ends. Is 30 seconds enough for dominance?
by !claw on Jul 8, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Is 30 seconds enough for dominance?”
If at any point during that 30 second period the fight is really close to being stopped….YES.
Kelvin Hunt
I'm like those boyz on the sidelines...cause I ain't playing...
by Tha Realness on Jul 8, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought at least part of it was that the loser of the round failed to earn a 9.
by Richard Wade on Jul 8, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of bringing up the past..
But Miragliotta is also human and under intense pressure. When Thompson was clearly in a dominant position landing elbows – albeit unimpressive elbows – I saw Jared Shaw screaming at the top of his lungs to stand the two up. Miragliotta didn’t stand them up, but he also didn’t stop the fight. When Florian had Lauzon mounted – granted a better position and Florian had established control of the mount – he wasn’t doing significant damage, but to use Lauzon’s own words: "I wasn’t going anywhere either." At that point, Kimbo wasn’t going anywhere and a good case can be made the fight should’ve been stopped at that point. Miragliotta would’ve gotten an earful from the Shaws and I wonder if subconsciously that played a role. I’m not saying it did, but I certainly do wonder.
That one was you, Luke.
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/6/2/544049/on-fixes-bad-calls-and-kim
So it really begs the question – why is it when Kimbo is dominated, tho not taking damage, the fight should have been stopped, yet when its Rampage, the round shouldn’t have even been 10-8?
and also, I didn’t time either, did anyone time how long JT was on top of Kimbo vs how long Forrest was on top of Rampage? I think it was 40 seconds vs 2+ minutes…. (give or take)
by mythbuster on Jul 8, 2008 12:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
To clarify, Kid Nate wrote the article. You wrote that in the comments.
by mythbuster on Jul 8, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Like I said, a strong case can be made the fight should’ve been stopped based on that criteria just as you can make a great case for Griffin winning a 10-8 round. I still agree with that. My only beef in the Kimbo fight was the actual stoppage itself.
by Luke Thomas on Jul 8, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My understanding of a 10-8 round is where the other guy doesn’t do enough to earn 1 point. Nothing to do with how close he gets to being finished off. But that’s just my interpretation of the rules
I love to hate
by fightlinker on Jul 8, 2008 12:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
But again, that would mean round 2 of Machida-Ortiz should have been 10-8. Ortiz did not land a single thing, and Machida only landed a couple. There are tons of standup fights where jack shit happens, one guy lands a couple, and the round stays 10-9. Look at Sanchez-Koscheck.
I don’t think round 2 was 10-8. Rampage was actually better off down in the mount than he was standing up with that injury, and actually came out of the position better off as well, because his leg had enough time to recover to be able to go again in the next round. Had they stayed standing, Forrest may have been able to finish him in the second.
Further, Forrest’s overall inactivity in the mount suggests he was happy just to have position, and was content to ride out the round for points. I can’t see that as 10-8.
by Michael Rome on Jul 8, 2008 1:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rampage was actually better off down in the mount than he was standing up with that injury, and actually came out of the position better off as well, because his leg had enough time to recover to be able to go again in the next round.
In hindsight.
by mythbuster on Jul 8, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its easy. Griffin was controlling the first round before he got knocked down. After getting knocked down he didnt take any more real damage.
by MrNiceGuyMMA on Jul 8, 2008 1:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but judging is changed Fight to Fight I think
In the Sherk/Franca fight, they gave hermes the second round for a single knee that dropped sherk, but he clearly lost the other 4 and a half minutes of the round
all you gotta do is...
by imapimp08 on Jul 8, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Different judges are going to score fights differently no matter what.
by Richard Wade on Jul 8, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is what I think is wrong
with the scoring system! A 3 point shot in basketball is worth 3 points! A free throw is worth 1 point! There are so many variables in a fight it’s almost impossible that we could come to a System where every judge would score a fight the same. Being at different areas of the cage means one Judge might think a shot connected that another judge could clearly see missed. Landing 10 jabs could be considered the same Damage as one power shot. Landing combos instead of 1 punch. All these things and more are just so hard to judge the same time your watching and waiting for more action. Not that i’ve got any bright ideas, but i’d like to see more consistency from judge to judge
all you gotta do is...
by imapimp08 on Jul 8, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my main problem with 10 point must is
if the 2nd round isn’t a 10-8 round when it’s clear Forrest dominated the round. How can the later rounds which are very close and be scored exactly the same (10-9 one way or another)?
Said another way. A round dominated by a fighter should not receive the same score as a razor close round.
by !claw on Jul 8, 2008 1:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Right
Exactly how is it that Petz’s two winning rounds (rounds 2 and 3) are the same as Gassaway’s opening blowout?
by Luke Thomas on Jul 8, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this just shows that those judges erred, not that the judges of the Jackson/Griffin fight did.
by Richard Wade on Jul 8, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BJ Penn vs. Stevenson / Hughes vs GSP 3
I’m against having the second round count as a 10-8 because the nature of grappling is that if Person A is dominating Person B, then Person B will not have any offense against Person A. That is a problem that is inherent to grappling scoring. And I personally do not know how the judges go about scoring that.
Let’s look at another fight. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the first round of PJ Penn vs. Stevenson a 10-9 round? Stevenson put up virtually no offense in that round and there was plenty of damage to him as well. I’ve seen very few fights as dominant as that was.
Another example is Hughes vs GSP 3, round 1. Hughes didn’t put up any offense either. Was that round a 10-8?
In my opinion a 10-8 round should be for situations where someone is barely surviving. That person is getting beat badly enough where the Ref has to make a decision as to whether or not the fight should be stopped.
by Tyrone Danger on Jul 8, 2008 1:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In my opinion a 10-8 round should be for situations where someone is barely surviving. That person is getting beat badly enough where the Ref has to make a decision as to whether or not the fight should be stopped.
Then what would a 10-7 round be? When someone dies and the ref doesn’t stop it?
by mythbuster on Jul 8, 2008 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t Starnes get a 10-7 for actively running away? I think refusing to engage even to the point of abandoning defence in favour of full out retreat – for an entire round, no less – would qualify as a 10-7. Or, losing the round 10-8 plus repeated rule violations (grabbing fence, grabbing shorts, poking the eye, etc.).
In all honestly it could be a 5 point system, or less, since the scores never go that low. It’s useless to ask what a 10-6 round looks like, because we’ll never really see one.
by AJB on Jul 8, 2008 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Griffin wasn’t really “controlling” the first round, that is an overstatement. He hit some great leg kicks, but it was Rampage that clipped him hard with two great combinations, the second of which caused Forrest to almost fall, and after that he knocked him down with an uppercut. He also hit him with about 3 or 4 more shots while on the ground and on his way up.
by Michael Rome on Jul 8, 2008 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Even if we insist on a guy earning a 9, defending three submissions and avoiding any serious damage in a mount should count, I think.
by Michael Rome on Jul 8, 2008 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I have to agree with that.
Somebody brought up that there needs to be more and more judging classes and refresher meetings for these people, and I agree completely.
I’m sure they go over the rules again and again, but sometimes having the definitions and such clarified for them, can help in their next job.
My biggest problem, isn’t who won or lost, but there glaring inconsistencies that exist in mma judging. It has always been a problem, and now that the sport is getting a higher and higher profile, the spotlight is really on the judges and referees.
"They said you was hung!!"
"And they was RIGHT!"
by BJJDenver on Jul 8, 2008 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of the inconsistencies are attributable to the different vantage points of the judges, I think.
by Richard Wade on Jul 8, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since MMA has been shoehorned into boxing scoring, we have a dilemma. In boxing, the rule is crystal clear, you get a count, you lose a point. We don’t have that rule in MMA since you can’t count seconds for a sub or being rocked but pulling guard. After reading some posts, I feel like I’m not alone in thinking round 2 was 10-9.
by frickshun on Jul 8, 2008 2:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Think Mike Tyson punchout
My personal opinion is that the judging is like the power meter at the bottom of Mike Tyson punchout. The meter goes up every time you punch glass joe, bald bull, etc. and goes down if you get punched. Once you reach a certain point you get the knockout punch.
When judging a round I see a meter at the bottom of the tv screen with Fighter A on the left and Fighter B on the right. The meter starts in the middle at the start of the round. It moves slightly toward the left when Fighter A lands a nick diaz pawing jab (and conversely away from Fighter B who was punched), moves a lot for a devasting rampage uppercut, moves a bit for a takedown and very slowly moves for positional control or more aggression, moves a little for a weak submission attempt but a lot for a tight triangle, etc, etc, etc. At the end of the round you see where the meter is. If it’s way over on the left or right than it’s a 10-8 (or 10-7) round. If it’s a bit to the left or right it’s a 10-9. If it’s close to the center it’s a 10-10 round.
by !claw on Jul 8, 2008 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That description worked far better than I expected it to.
by Richard Wade on Jul 8, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well firstly, based on your example there is an easy way to distinguish between the two fights. In one case the round was even for approximately 4 minutes and then the last minute one competitor dominated till the end of the round. In the Griffen – Rampage fight, Griffen knocked him down and spent 4 minutes improving his position and doing ground and pound. Rampage accomplished absolutely nothing during that round. No he didn’t get cut open, but really if you can show me the paragraph in the unified rules where it states “and no 10-8 round shall be awarded until there is bloodshed” I supose you’ve got a point. Otherwise, the dearth of any sort of activity and Griffen’s having kept busy with elbows, punches and improving his position warrant the two points.
by ChrisBat on Jul 9, 2008 5:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is exactly what I planned on posting about this today. The biggest difference between the examples given, and the hypothetical involving 4 minutes of both fighters circling and doing nothing, is that in this case you had one fighter (Forrest) actually dominating for an entire 5 minutes. He landed destructive leg kicks, got Rampage on the ground, was active, attempted submissions, did ground and pound, and prevented Rampage from doing absolutely anything for an entire 5 minutes, while the other fighter (Rampage) did nothing. It’s not the same as two fighters doing nothing for 4 minutes and then one of them landing a big shot, and it’s not the same as a fight where both guys land some offense but one ends up controlling the last half.
It’s not worth much, but mid-way through the third round both Rogan and Goldberg commented that Griffin probably earned a 10-8 round in the second. The judges agreed. Roughly half of the people posting on blogs, etc., have agreed. About half of the people who don’t think it was a 10-8 have indicated that they thought it was a 10-9 but can “see” where others get the 10-8. I don’t see the big travesty or conspiracy here.
by Kierkegaard on Jul 9, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It goes beyond that.
It’s still not clear cut as to why that would be a 10-8 round when there’s rarely ever a 10-8 round. I know we’re not talking boxing but if we were the first round would’ve been a 10-8 round and I’m under the impression that the judges came from that sport…. Am I was off based there?
The other thing is the controversy of the fight.When’s the last time you’ve seen this reaction to a judges decision? It’s been a while for me… Also, it was a unanimous decision. There are so many people that disagree with each other about the outcome that I find it hard to believe that 3 people all thought Griffin won and that 2 of the 3 judges gave the first round to Griffin. I just don’t see how that could be.
by MGMMMA on Jul 9, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct
The issue isn’t that everyone tell me why they think it’s a 10-8 round, which is what everyone is doing. What I’m driving at is hammering out what makes a 10-8 round a 10-8 round in MMA.
by Luke Thomas on Jul 9, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, instead of saying I thought this was a 10-8 round because Griffin delivered damaging leg kicks, put Rampage on the mat, completely controlled him for an entire 5 minutes, and Rampage did absolutely nothing but lay there and take shots for 5 minutes while making absolutely no effort at any offense, all because Forrest didn’t let him do anything else, I’ll say that I think what makes a 10-8 round a 10-8 round in MMA is when somebody completely controls a round, entirely eliminating their opponent’s ability to do anything for the bulk of the 5 minutes, and delivers offensive blows of their own, controls the positioning in the ring, etc. That’s exactly what this was.
The examples you cited in the first post do not make a 10-8 round for the same reason that a fighter who gets dominated for 4 1/2 minutes only to pull out a near submission at the last second does not get a 10-8. Because they did not involve complete domination for a full 5 minutes. There seems to be way too much emphasis on “close to stopping the fight” by a lot of people here in trying to explain a 10-8 round, but I’ve seen tons of fights where one guy gets completely tooled for 4 1/2 minutes and then gets a lucky submission attempt locked in at the last second. The other guy might be very close to tapping, but holds on for the last 5 or 10 seconds. Just because he was close to being stopped doesn’t mean it should be a 10-8 round.
My criteria is really based on domination. A round like round 2 is a good example of what should make a 10-8 round because of the way Forrest dominated the entire round. Not only did Rampage do absolutely nothing, but Forrest was the main cause of that and he did a great deal. He landed devastating kicks, he put Rampage down, and he delivered countless elbows and a few submission attempts. When one fighter is that dominant and the other fighter’s complete lack of offense is attributable to the domination and not both fighters just avoiding each other, that’s the kind of thing that makes a 10-8 round, in my book.
by Kierkegaard on Jul 9, 2008 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, but you're still not answering the question
First, your characterization of both round 2 of Rampage-Griffin and round 1 of Gassaway-Petz are not accurate. But that’s neither here nor there.
What I’m asking is this: why, intrinsically, is domination a better criteria for 10-8 than domination/damage? What underwrites the criteria for judging MMA? and from there, how do we extrapolate the concept to apply it to 10-8 or 10-7 rounds so it comports with our judgement of 10-9 rounds?
What are the values we should be underscoring and why?
by Luke Thomas on Jul 9, 2008 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be YOUR opinion
Not based on facts or any sort of rules/regulations.
You think that Griffin completely dominated yet many fans/critics may disagree, myself included. I didn’t see domination by any means. What I did see was Griffin controlling the round, and he did win it, but that’s it. He didn’t eliminate Rampage’s offense completely or stop him cold. If it was that much of a domination he would’ve stopped the fight in that round. I think a fighter having his eyes rolled back and dropping like a rag doll to the floor is dominated, but that’s still my opinion.
A good example for me that wasn’t too terribly long ago was UFC 79 GSP vs. Hughes, the first round. THAT was complete domination. Obviously GSP finished Hughes so we don’t get the scorecard (unless someone knows where it is). But from the reviews I’ve read and critics/writers judging themselves they ALL gave GSP a 10-9 round….
So ask yourself this, if the judges or Joe Rogan hadn’t said anything about a 10-8 round would you STILL have considered it? I could be wrong but I don’t think it’d be on people’s minds.
That’s the point and no one has yet to come with some form of regulations as to what EXACTLY constitutes a 10-8 round. See the point?
by MGMMMA on Jul 10, 2008 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
great provocative post Luke, I’ve written a longer reply at my own blog but, in short, I’d say that in my opinion Griffin/Jackson R2 was 10-8 because Griffin shut down Jackson’s offense to literally zero whereas, in the fight you link to, Petz manages to score some points in the first few minutes before getting hurt. I’m therefore awarding value to positional dominance, because it’s the most significant attribute of this particular round. It seems to me more accurate to say that if you scored this Petz/Gassaway R1 as 10-8, then you’d also have to score the Griffin/Jackson R1 as 10-8 to Jackson.
by tomh on Jul 9, 2008 6:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
