Did JDS have any offense whatsoever in the first, a round in which he was potshotted, taken down, slammed, dropped, and pounded nearly to a finish on the ground?
lol @ "how many takedowns did he stop"...Does that mean you can't "totally dominate" a guy even if you beat the complete shit out of him, as long as he blocks a couple punches?
He didn't just block a couple of punches.
He left Cain lying flat on the ground holding onto an ankle for dear life, like a kid on his dad, several times.
It was not a 10-7 and rightfully so.
Good night, fuck.
Wow what a beast making Cain hold on for dear life.
I don't think you will ever see a 10-7 round in a five round fight. Scoring a single round 10-7 in a five or three round fight almost ends any doubt about who will win a decision, making it almost impossible for the other fighter to come back without a dominating the last four rounds, KO, or submission.
I'll agree with Orcus it was a beating, but I think judges will be apprehensive about ever scoring a 10-7. It digs a fighter into too deep of a hole in only three or five rounds. What happens if a guy loses only two rounds but dominates the remaining 4 or 3?
10-7 is a bit too much for such short fights, imo.
Guys, get over the 10-7 thing. That's my personal scoring. If you don't think that round was "total domination" because Junior stopped some takedowns, congrats.
This thread is about the utter absurdity of one judge not even having the first round be a 10-8.
He scored the round the same as he would have scored the rounds of Brunson/Leben, or Belcher/Okami, or any of the rounds of Diaz/Condit, for example.
I don't think you will ever see a 10-7 round in a five round fight. Scoring a single round 10-7 in a five or three round fight almost ends any doubt about who will win a decision, making it almost impossible for the other fighter to come back without a dominating the last four rounds, KO, or submission.
I'll agree with Orcus it was a beating, but I think judges will be apprehensive about ever scoring a 10-7. It digs a fighter into too deep of a hole in only three or five rounds. What happens if a guy loses only two rounds but dominates the remaining 4 or 3?
10-7 is a bit too much for such short fights, imo.
If he dominates the remaining rounds, those rounds should be 10-8, which would be enough to give him the win.
Anyway, using the scores correctly in a way that FORCES the behind fighter to finish his opponent if he wants to win can only be a good thing imo.
PR - 10-7? Are you fucking joking? Is this a 15-round boxing match? If not, then a 10-7 score is irrelevant.
Even 10-8 is a joke is in 3-round MMA.
Because of the small number of rounds, boxing scoring is terrible.
Of course, it's been a decade now and we are still using a shitty scoring system for MMA.
And NO, half-point rounds arent a solution.
No 10-8 rounds? Are YOU fucking joking?
So, you think that if a fighter A loses rounds 1 and 2 that are RAZOR CLOSE and could possibly go either way, but DOMINATES round 3 and almost finishes it multiple times...he should still lose the fight 29-28?
Only using 10-9 scoring is one of the silliest fucking things I've ever heard.
10-8 rounds need to used far more often. Seriously, the only drawback is a draw, but sometimes a draw is the right score.
This....
I agree with you Orcus, I'd have loved to see 10-7 in the first (and the 1st Maynard-Edgar as well)...but people are so used to the 10-9 MUST system, that 95% of people are going to disagree with any round being scored anything but 10-9. The current 10-9 must system is terrible for MMA, because with so few rounds to work with, you need to account for rounds that are more dominant. There should be more 10-10 draw rounds, more 10-8's, and yes, even more 10-7's.
2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
"Guys, get over the 10-7 thing. That's just my stupid, incorrect opinion. Now listen to the rest of my opinion!"
In your intelligent, correct opinion, do you feel that the first round warrants a score of 10-9, described in the rules as one fighter winning by "a close margin"? Do you feel the first round was as close as the rounds in, for example, Condit/Diaz?
Should have been 50-44 at least. If you're not gonna give a 10-8 for the first round, I have no clue what sort of round you give a 10-8 for. JDS was dropped hard, completely dominated and barely survived the round.
There were other fights where the decision was "split" and the scores had much more of an affect than JDS/Cain 10-8 round debate.
Regarding Cain/JDS, it makes no difference at all on the outcome of the fight. Even if you give it 10-8, the decision still reads the same, unanimous. Cain still holds the belt, still dominated the fight.
It's ridiculous of all the scorecards, this is the one that is being talked about.
"It's ridiculous of all the scorecards, this is the one that is being talked about."
Which other scorecard last night would you rather talk about?
" Cain still holds the belt, still dominated the fight."
According to the scorecard in question, Cain did NOT "dominate" the fight at all -- he simply won each round by a "close margin". Do you agree or disagree with that description of the fight?
The 1st and 2nd rounds were def. 10-8, maybe 10-7 if it was more commonly given out.
10-7 rounds are kind of tricky because we haven't seen very many cases where they have been used to really see any consistency on how they should be applied.
The only one I know of is Sammy Morgan vs Forest Petz where a judge scored one of the rounds 10-7.
