How did you score the 1st round of Edgar vs Maynard?

The scoring in MMA is beyond ****ed up.

First, I hate the prospect of rounds and feel that the fight should be judged on it's totality.

For a more recent example of how this ****s things up, look at Machida vs. Jackson. Is there any even remote doubt that Machida won that fight? He threw and landed more strikes, he, by far, was closer to finishing that fight then Jackson ever was, he was the aggressor when it actually mattered and yet, because of the rounds it was actually conceivable that Jackson won.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

If that first round was not an example of a 10-7 round, then what in the hell is? What more could possibly be done? If it had been stopped there would have been zero complaints. That was a whopping of ass I haven't seen since UFC 40 when Tito beat the **** hell out of Ken, and even this was more obvious. (Not that there may not have been other examples, but that's the one that comes immediately to mind)

 

10-8. I don't think there's been a precedent of a 10-7 round and 10-8 rounds are pretty rare as it is.

 

This.

 

There isn't an example of a 10-7 round, though. We don't know what one looks like because there's never been one. Under the current scoring of MMA it's impossibly subjective to tell the difference between a 10-8 round and a 10-7 round, especially in an MMA world where 10-8 rounds are rare (Only one judge scored Thiago a 10-8 round against Vera, and Thiago absolutely dominated throughout). Under the current system it was 10-8 at worse.

Whether other systems need to be looked at is interesting. Depends how you score close calls with submissions, though. That gets confusing.

 

Agreed.

The first round of Edgar-Maynard was extremely one-sided, but generally speaking to score a 10-8 round in an MMA fight the round has to be extremely one-sided anyway.

 

We're also talking about judges that somehow scored (at least one of them) the first round of Sanchez vs. Guida a 10-9.

These are often guys who can't tell the difference between a butterfly guard and a rubber guard.

 

So, by that rationale, there never should have been a 10-8 round before someone ever gave one out because there, at the time, hadn't been a precedent for it?

No, that's clearly an example of a reducto ad absurdum.

 

Well there have been even more one sided beatdown rounds that haven't been a 10-7. Would that score worse than round one of Carwin Vs Lesnar?

 

Yeah, watch that again. That was a 10-8 easy and very possibly a 10-7, but this is, by far, the clearest example of a 10-7 that I can, off the top of my head, think of.

 

Maybe Anderson vs. Franklin 2, Round 1, was another fairly clear example of a 10-7. The only thing that saved Franklin at the end of that round was the bell.

Or even their first fight, he was brutalized.

Again, you're argument hasn't changed. It's still the same reducto ad absurdum.

 

It was a beatdown. No question, however this is a sport where under the current scoring system a 10-8 round is really rare. Really under the current rules a 10-7 would have to involve someone being killed and the ref deciding not to stop it.

 

My argument would be that you can't suddenly start scoring 10-7s as a judge without some form of guideance and discussion with other judges as to what should constitute a 10-7 round.

 

Read my post(s) above. Your argument isn't changing. I've already thrown this rationale out the window. It simply doesn't make sense.

Saying that there hasn't been one therefore there can't be one is just...ridiculous.

The problem is the judging system itself, but I have my thoughts on that and that it could fill well more then a page.