July 09, 2008

what is a 10–8 round in mixed martial arts?

Writing about web page http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/7/8/567045/more-on-the-10-8-round-and

The biggest controversy coming out of the past weekend's UFC 86 event is the inconsistency of judging.  The main event, Quinton Jackson vs Forrest Griffin, was an extremely close bout, yet Griffin won a unanimous decision by a large, unrepresentative margin (Griffin won 48-46 according to two judges, and 49-46 according to the third).  It was reported almost immediately that Jackson's camp would be appealing the decision, and various MMA commentators have since questioned the logic of judging and criticised its inconsistency. 

There are two main points of controversy:  one is to do with human error and the judges' lack of expertise, and the second is a more interesting issue about the content of MMA rules.  The first is that two judges awarded the first round to Griffin, despite the fact that, in most people's eyes (including mine), Jackson clearly won that round  (Jeff Sherwood and Greg Savage nail this issue on Monday's Savage Dog Show). 

The second issue regards the second round, which several commentators (and one judge) scored 10-8 for Griffin.  Luke Thomas has been leading the interrogation of 10-8 rounds at Bloody Elbow here and here.  In the latter post, Thomas does an excellent job of proposing some very productive questions on the issue.  In his opinion, the second round should have been scored 10-9 for Griffin (not 10-8).  He points to the first round of a recent fight between Forrest Petz and Brian Gassaway (which was scored 10-9 Gassaway, yet Thomas believes should have been 10-8 Gassaway) and asks:

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 [Griffin] uneven balance of less damage (the type that ends fights, not just stuns opponents) and more positional control?

To my mind, round 2 of Griffin vs Jackson is 10-8, because Griffin controls Jackson to the point that Jackson does not manage a single bit of offence during the whole 5 minutes.  At the beginning of the round, Jackson attempts two short jabs (neither of which connect) and, following Griffin's two outside leg kicks which buckle his clearly already-sore knee, a sub-par single leg takedown that is turned into a guillotine attempt and clinch by Griffin.  And that's it.  For the rest of the round, Jackson is defending strikes and the occasional submission attempt by Griffin (who successfully moves from half-guard to side control to full mount, although Jackson is more concerned with defending strikes than defending position).  

So here, I am primarily awarding value to Griffin's positional dominance - because that's Griffin's principal offensive attack in his round.  If we're talking damage, then you need to evaluate the damage in relative terms - although Jackson defends successfully enough to not be in danger of being stopped, Griffin inflicts significantly more damage in relation to the damage that Jackson inflicts (which is, as I have shown, none).   In the comments section on Luke's post, '!claw' makes the same argument and is refuted by 'Hardcharger' who states that:

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).

Yet this argument seems to overlook the fact that the opponent has not inflicted damage precisely because the round's winner has controlled them to the point of domination.  It isn't like Jackson has not inflicted damage because of laziness - he is being forced on the defensive by Forrest's positional attack.  And the fact that Jackson's defense is effective means that it is a 10-8 round, rather than anything less (although, if his defense wasn't effective, then we wouldn't even go to the judges' scorecards).  Although it doesn't look (or feel) as devastating as strikes or submissions, positional control should still be a key part of the judging criteria in MMA.  Yet each individual round is different - you need to judge, after seeing the round, what its key attributes are. 

I've only watched the Petz vs Gassaway fight once so I can't make a firm decision either way - but I can understand an argument for that first round being 10-9 (rather than 10-8) because, for 3 and a half minutes, Petz does stay standing with Gassaway.  Petz connects with some (admittedly minor) strikes and also successfully wrestles on the feet for a little while.  A key question seems to be: how far does significant damage cause one to forget the action that has preceded it in that round?  How you score this first round between Gassaway and Petz would therefore seem to me to have more of a bearing on how you'd score the first round between Griffin and Jackson (in which Jackson knocked down Griffin in the latter half).  How much does a knockdown count?  In boxing, if a fighter is knocked down then they automatically lose a point - do you consider this to be the case in MMA? 

In total though, I believe that Jackson vs Griffin was my fight of the year so far - it was a five round epic, with a story behind it, that went back and forth throughout and had the crowd engrossed.  Hell, I scored it as a 47-47 draw. 






  



- 2 comments by 0 or more people

  1. brad13x

    10-8 Rounds are used to show complete dominance in a round by one fighter. The fighter that receives the 8 should also have taken a lot of damage or had several knockdowns (not just one). They should be Rare.

    Keep in mind most things I say about judging is from what I know by sitting next to and talking to judges at several MMA fights. Sometimes these judges have even asked me who I thought won the fight/round etc. but that’s another topic.

    Now the first 2 rounds of Rampage fights are prime examples of a close round and a possible 10-8 round.

    Round 1 should have been 10-9 Rampage.

    The round was very close with Forrest landing a majority of the strikes (low kicks) but Rampage landed 2 hard shots one which dropped Griffin so we know its hard. That strike in a close round should have given Page the round.

    In is a close round many Judges remember what happens last. Not fair but it’s just human nature. That’s why we see last minute takedowns “steal” a round.

    Round 2 Should have been 10-9 Forrest.

    I actually though it was a 10-8 round the first time I saw it but never thought they would award it because it was a championship fight. After watching it again Forrest dominates the round but doesn’t inflict enough real damage to deserve a 10-8 round.

    I have seen Tito Oritz and Matt Hughes have several of these type rounds and never get a 10-8 for them.

    Think about it like this if Forrest would have been landing that light of punches/elbows (while moving forward) when they were standing and Jackson did nothing but block should that have been a 10-8 round?

    So i feel using everything i know that there should have been no 10-8 rounds in the Forrest rampage fight.

    10 Jul 2008, 22:17

  2. MMA Fight Shop

    I still maintain that Rampage won that fight.

    26 Mar 2009, 21:51


Add a comment

Name
Email
Anti-Spam Question
My t-shirt is red. What colour is my t-shirt?
Anti-Spam Answer
Comment


Your IP address will be recorded. -

You can not use HTML, but you can use our special markup -

Trackbacks

July 2008

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jun |  Today  | Aug
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31         

Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • I still maintain that Rampage won that fight. by MMA Fight Shop on this entry
  • 10–8 Rounds are used to show complete dominance in a round by one fighter. The fighter that receives… by brad13x on this entry
  • It's strange as I've come here from writing Emails I thought I could click on the bit above and add … by Sue on this entry
  • I can relate quite well to the way you try to achieve your aims. I like the way it's so structured, … by Sue on this entry
  • Ah, so there ARE other people at Warwick who train BJJ. :D by slideyfoot on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIV