I kind of like the way Dream scores fights, but could see the potential problems in it. With Dream, whoever is winning at the end of the fight wins the fight. They dont score by round. They score by overal fight. Who looks like they got their asses handed to them and who looks fresh.
I didn't think it was that good, but regardless, I don't like to judge a card after the fact. Sure, good matchups can produce good fights, but I prefer to pay for marquee matchups and understand that the fight itself may not live up to the hype. Monday morning QBing has always annoyed me when it comes to later talk about a card being good or bad. However, I admit that I probably do it at times and I also have been down on cards when others were not and they ended up being vindicated.
Agree completely. As Max says (and I like to think he stole it from mE way back when, but I'll just say we came up with the saying separately, haha), the essense of who deserves a round should come down to who you would rather be. Getting taken down means nothing unless it means something. Most of Rashad's takedowns didn't accomplish anything.
It's a fair point Tam, but like adam alluded to, one could see a takedown as being a blow in itself. I'm sure a HEAVY takedown when you get slammed to the canvas would hurt as much, or take the wind out of you as much as the average kick to the body or something no? So in that sense, I think takedowns should be scored. Perhaps not as significantly as they are now though. And I hate lay and pray as much as the next guy. To me Rashad wasn't laying and praying. He couldn't do much on the ground, but the repeated takedowns and a few punches here and there was still much, much more than Silva was doing.
Only if you scored round three 10-8, which doesn't exist in MMA. So under MMA rules, no it shouldn't been a draw, it should have been scored exactly as the judges scored it.
where did you get that idea ?? In the same shit hole where you get that Street fighter 4 is better that the 3 ( SF4 is basically the old ex +alpha game, with the same old characters, same moves and basically nothing new, while SFIII is a masterpiece ) ?????10-8 round do exist in MMA
Exactly, UFC 108 was very weak and even if all the fights turned out to be foy candidate, it wouldn't change the fact. And I also agree that it wasn't that good. early 1 punch ko a la Yvell-Santos and Dayley-McLovin, while cool from time to time, aren't what I'm looking for and what I consider a good fight. Many people blasted Silva-Evans as a boring fight but I thought it was a decent solid fight, but nothing incredible either.
Yvel looked fucking awfull, like a clown on skates, I don't know what the fuck happened to him but that was very disapointing
I've never seen a 10-8 round in MMA from a knockdown, a la boxing. By the way SF4 is just as good as SF3, just different. It's much better than Alpha, and if you think otherwise, you clearly haven't played it much. It has just as much depth as SF3, just as much strategy. SF3 was over reliant on parries, the only problem with SF4 is it encourages turtling, and tick throws. Apart from the turtling and tick throws (which are admittedly annoying) - SF4 is superb.
I have seen 10-8 rounds in mma, but not by a single kd or even a couple. a 10-8 round comes when someone just gets utterly dominated for an entire round and survives. It just doesn't happen too often beings refs are reluctant to let the fight go on when someone isn't defending themself.
this is a great article I read on 10-8 scoring a while back. What Is a 10-8 Round After All? by Luke Thomas on Jul 7, 2008 9:44 AM EDT in News 30 comments Rami Genauer tries to unpack the concept behind the 10-8 round and why it's so hard to decide in close cases what is and isn't a 10-8 round: To combat the vagaries surrounding the requirements for scoring a 10-8 round, FightMetric uses a simple rule, based on data around average round effectiveness differential. If a fighter puts up a score of more than 100 and his score is more than six times his opponent’s score, that round is called 10-8. In that case, Round 1 of St. Pierre-Serra was a clear 10-8, with St. Pierre’s score nearly 10 times that of Serra. Taking a look at a dozen or so folks who live-blogged the event, only one of them scored the first round 10-8 for St. Pierre. That is not an accusation or indictment of the judgment of those who scored it 10-9; they scored it based on their interpretation of the rules, which is as valid as anyone else’s. And therein lies the problem. Since there are no official guidelines for what constitutes a 10-8 round, your guess is as good as mine, which is as good as the official judges’, as we see in… I tend to give 10-8's in situations where there was dominance bordering on the necessity of referee intervention. I also give weight to when a fighter is able to do very effective damage in addition to offering strong positional control. So, I'd be a little hesitant to giving Griffin the second round on a 10-8 basis since Rampage's health and awareness were not being compromised. I won't argue with those who did give Griffin the two point edge, though. What I would say, however, is that without any sort of clear criteria in the Unified Rules regarding what constitutes a 10-8 versus a 10-9 round, we are mostly just arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin
But never just for a knockdown, like boxing. So with MMA scoring, I don't see how you could score Evans - Silva a draw.
Probably not logically, but a lot of people were repulsed with the way Rashad fought. And I just think that fight was a draw.
so what you are saying is MWS is right. You just have biases that make you think it should have been a draw.
I think every fight where one guy just takes the other down and does nothing should be a draw or no contest. :cheer:
I don't think so. If you can't stop a takedown, that's a weakness in your game. You deserve to lose. Is it fun to watch. No. should you be banned from PPV cards, most likely yes.
