Veteran MMA judge Sal D’Amato explained why he scored a 10-8 scorecard for Michael Chandler in the Charles Oliveira title fight at UFC 262.
Oliveira didn’t need the judges to come into the equation because he knocked Chandler out in the second round to win the vacant UFC lightweight belt. But the fact the first round was scored 10-8 for Chandler by Sal D’Amato and Chris Lee despite the fact Oliveira had back control on Chandler during the round is troubling. The correct scorecard according to most fans was a 10-9 Chandler card, but instead, we somehow got two 10-8 rounds instead. That led to UFC commentator Daniel Cormier taking the judges to town for their cards.
People want more diversity in scoring but when 2 judges independently score 10-8’s based on the judging criteria everyone complains?
The idea that someone needs to be beaten half to death to get a 10-8 round needs to be gone if we want more diverse scoring. I’d prefer that over the over-complicated half point scores some have suggested.
I still think it should have been 10-9, but you can definitely make the argument that it was a 10-8
Using more 10-8 rounds in a fight without a mauling is a step in the right direction.I`d also like to see more 10-10 rounds used also.
People shouldn’t be telling Sal D’Amato how to score a round. They should be listening to him, to try to understand scoring.
Now if we can get judges to explain their reasoning on controversial scored fights & being held accountable for their actions.I`m talking full public disclosure.
D’Amato is a good judge and 10-8 is perfectly defensible.
I’m more concerned with Rosales’ scoring 30-27 Grundy earlier on that card, than this 10-8 by D’Amato. That one was the real head scratcher imo…
The best future thing for MMA is current 10-9 rounds should be scored as 10-10 rounds. So you can either win by 10-8s or by finish, or else its a draw. This slight tweak will be hugely beneficial.
Winning by small margin is MAJOR BS!