Fights by Email
FORUM | FIGHTS | MMAUP

ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

MMA + Boxing + Kickboxing is merged. MMA Fight Videos, Free UFC Videos, Interviews, Highlights, Weigh-Ins, Previews, ... EMBED or link to source site! Do not start Spoiler-TOPICS!
User avatar
xSamWaynex
H.O.F. CRI2
H.O.F. CRI2
Posts: 3355
Joined: Jan 24. 2014, 00:59
Location: Norte Cackalacky

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby xSamWaynex » Jun 12. 2018, 00:36

SakuSamurai wrote:
Kizzo wrote:People are saying a round should be 10-8 based on 1 knockdown? 
A lot of sour grapes here. Whittaker won. Deal with it.

He couldnt do shit with it? Whittaker took a serious beating. More than once he was in survival mode. 
You could say Covington didnt do shit with his takedown-attempts. It still won him.the fight. 
But Romero was landing huge shots and did damage. I guess you saw the slomo.

The "serious beating" happened because of the power shots that Romero was able to land while the fight was still standing. So Kizzo was right, Romero couldn't do shit even with the knock down as he failed to capitalize on the knock down. Oh and Covington didn't just go for take down attempts, he actually got the take downs several times. THAT is why he won the fight, because he controlled the pace of the fight in the first and second which cost RDA a lot of gas, which meant that Covington was able to continue to pour it on, and RDA was unable to really do anything worthwhile about it. Are you sure you were watching those two fights?
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
xSamWaynex
H.O.F. CRI2
H.O.F. CRI2
Posts: 3355
Joined: Jan 24. 2014, 00:59
Location: Norte Cackalacky

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby xSamWaynex » Jun 12. 2018, 00:43

yodelling wrote:Also, if you look into that 10-8 rule, it sort of "forces" fighters towards looking for a finish by rewarding this with a bigger win margin per round, so I don't think it's a bad rule at all. When you combine the new 10-8 rule with the "Effective Striking (damage)" criteria, fighters being aggressive and looking for a finish are rewarded against volume strikers and point-fighters, all that is missing is adequate and/or prepared judging...

But "Effective Striking" doesn't just deal with the amount of damage done in all cases. This is why they ALSO take into account the number of strikes thrown, as well as accuracy. If one fighter is simply looking for the win with one massive KO strike, and misses, why should that be considered greater than someone throwing ten smaller strikes but landing 8 of them? Even if that one strike did land, how is one strike that didn't get the KO supposed to be seen as greater than someone landing a greater volume of punches? In a lot of Nate Diaz's fights he won because of the pressure that he put on fighters. If we were to go by the whole "damage" scenario then all someone would have to do is go for broke with all their punches, and say damn the consequences because doing so would get them the win in the case of a decision. 
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23177
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 05:45

You guys bitching about the decision could cry all you want, it's not going to change a damn thing. :lol: :c 
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F.
H.O.F.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 05:52

Kizzo wrote:
yodelling wrote:The rules clearly state (since the old rule book), that EFFECTIVE STRIKING, a term invented to euphemize the term DAMAGE (as perfectly explained somewhere in the same book), TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF JUDGING, like number of strikes and position control.

Actually the rulebook says effective striking IS number of strikes.
Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.
http://media.ufc.tv//discover-ufc/Unified_Rules_MMA.pdf

If we go by this definition, then Round 1 could or should have been a 10-8 for Whittaker.

This is a dumb summary and not what commissions put in place.
This is the real one:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/forms_pubs/publications/unified_rules_2017.pdf
And this is what you should watch out for:
Effective Striking/Grappling

Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact.

FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23177
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 05:58

yodelling wrote:
Kizzo wrote:
yodelling wrote:The rules clearly state (since the old rule book), that EFFECTIVE STRIKING, a term invented to euphemize the term DAMAGE (as perfectly explained somewhere in the same book), TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF JUDGING, like number of strikes and position control.

Actually the rulebook says effective striking IS number of strikes.
Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.
http://media.ufc.tv//discover-ufc/Unified_Rules_MMA.pdf

If we go by this definition, then Round 1 could or should have been a 10-8 for Whittaker.

This is a dumb summary and not what commissions put in place.
This is the real one:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/forms_pubs/publications/unified_rules_2017.pdf
And this is what you should watch out for:
Effective Striking/Grappling

Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact.



Is that just for California or for all states?
On December 16, 2016 t
he
[color=#ff3333]California Athletic Commission[/color] authorized and approved the revised
Unified Rules of MMA
as adopted by the Association of Boxing Commissions and
Combative in
August 2016.
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F.
H.O.F.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 06:00

All states, apparently written in California...
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23177
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 06:01

yodelling wrote:All states, apparently written in California...

I remember there was a card where the 10-8 aren't in place.
Proof that it applies to all states?
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F.
H.O.F.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 06:08

Kizzo wrote:
yodelling wrote:All states, apparently written in California...

I remember there was a card where the 10-8 aren't in place.
Proof that it applies to all states?

Read the header, all the signing parties :) This is the Association of Commissions, it encompasses all of them. As for the 10-8 cards, lots of commissions decided to stick by the old rules since a while ago (meaning, not everybody instantly moved over).

Even then, if you look at the old one (can't get bothered to search for it right now), they openly state that the term "effective striking" has been coined to avoid litigation by printing it out for everyone to read that what they were looking for was "damage".

These things aren't starting out from nothing also, so the term effective striking has already been defined and explained in the previous set of rules, where it's even more clearly stated (I kid you not) that accusing a strike (like buckling the knees) is an indication of "effectiveness", and therefore said strike should be judged higher than cumulative number of effective strikes in that round.

All this translates to damage > volume > position/aggression (old or new book).
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F.
H.O.F.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 06:16

It's all super clearly written man, Romero had this... Like I said, right now these two guys are pretty much near the top of my favorite active fighters and I couldn't even get myself to root for one of them. I tend to get happier for Romero when he's doing well because I think he has less time left to get a deserved belt around his waist, but I've followed Whittaker since Smashes and am super glad that he himself is already a champ. And by the way they fought, no one "lost" this fight, but going through the rules impartially, Romero had this on the scoring criteria...
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23177
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 06:23

yodelling wrote:
Kizzo wrote:
yodelling wrote:All states, apparently written in California...

I remember there was a card where the 10-8 aren't in place.
Proof that it applies to all states?

Read the header, all the signing parties :) This is the Association of Commissions, it encompasses all of them. As for the 10-8 cards, lots of commissions decided to stick by the old rules since a while ago (meaning, not everybody instantly moved over).

Even then, if you look at the old one (can't get bothered to search for it right now), they openly state that the term "effective striking" has been coined to avoid litigation by printing it out for everyone to read that what they were looking for was "damage".

These things aren't starting out from nothing also, so the term effective striking has already been defined and explained in the previous set of rules, where it's even more clearly stated (I kid you not) that accusing a strike (like buckling the knees) is an indication of "effectiveness", and therefore said strike should be judged higher than cumulative number of effective strikes in that round.

All this translates to damage > volume > position/aggression (old or new book).

It's the "Association of Boxing Commissions".  You left the "Boxing" part out.
Anywho, it says it there...
A 10-8 round in MMA is not the most common score a judge will render


So it's more like a guideline, than a rule that should be followed. Otherwise, Conor should have gotten a 10-8 in the rounds where he buckled Nate even under the old rules.
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F.
H.O.F.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 06:35

Kizzo wrote:It's the "Association of Boxing Commissions".  You left the "Boxing" part out.
Anywho, it says it there...
A 10-8 round in MMA is not the most common score a judge will render


So it's more like a guideline, than a rule that should be followed. Otherwise, Conor should have gotten a 10-8 in the rounds where he buckled Nate even under the old rules.

Dude. "Boxing" commissions do all the judging and regulations in MMA because there are no "MMA" commissions (weird, I know, and part of the problem).
Don't cherry pick your quotes. Right after "10-8 isn't the most common", comes:
but it is absolutely essential to the evolution of the sport and the fairness to the fighters that judges understand and effectively utilize the score of 10 - 8. A score of 10 -8 does not require a fighter to dominate their opponent for 5 minutes of a round. The score of 10 - 8 is utilized by the judge when the judge sees verifiable actions on the part of either fighter. Judges shall ALWAYS give a score of 10 - 8 when the judge has established that one fighter has dominated the action of the round, had duration of the domination and also impacted their opponent with either effective strikes or effective grappling maneuvers that have diminished the abilities of their opponent.

So after Romero nearly got Whittaker twice, and Whittaker couldn't do anything except hope the round ended quickly, "diminished abilities" is what we see, and more than what the knees-buckling would've meant as a round decider.

Romero did gas though (I actually bet against him because of the weight cut), so he couldn't capitalize on it in the two rounds he got close to it, and he let the finish get away, making a textbook case for a 10 - 8 under the new rules. Meaning, a fighter got very close to finishing but didn't, and significantly and obviously diminished the abilities of the opponent with effective striking, yet still going to a decision.

As for Conor and Nate, nope. Old rules :D
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
medicineeng
HEAVYW. CHAMP
HEAVYW. CHAMP
Posts: 1094
Joined: Apr 1. 2010, 13:11
Location: Currently on planet Earth

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby medicineeng » Jun 12. 2018, 10:56

On the fight, I saw it as a draw.

I'm still surprised how Romero at 41 can have this shape and not pissing hot.

That guy must be from another planet...
The lunatic will lead the blind
ADF

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23177
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 14:11

yodelling wrote:
Kizzo wrote:It's the "Association of Boxing Commissions".  You left the "Boxing" part out.
Anywho, it says it there...
A 10-8 round in MMA is not the most common score a judge will render


So it's more like a guideline, than a rule that should be followed. Otherwise, Conor should have gotten a 10-8 in the rounds where he buckled Nate even under the old rules.

Dude. "Boxing" commissions do all the judging and regulations in MMA because there are no "MMA" commissions (weird, I know, and part of the problem).
Don't cherry pick your quotes. Right after "10-8 isn't the most common", comes:
but it is absolutely essential to the evolution of the sport and the fairness to the fighters that judges understand and effectively utilize the score of 10 - 8. A score of 10 -8 does not require a fighter to dominate their opponent for 5 minutes of a round. The score of 10 - 8 is utilized by the judge when the judge sees verifiable actions on the part of either fighter. Judges shall ALWAYS give a score of 10 - 8 when the judge has established that one fighter has dominated the action of the round, had duration of the domination and also impacted their opponent with either effective strikes or effective grappling maneuvers that have diminished the abilities of their opponent.

So after Romero nearly got Whittaker twice, and Whittaker couldn't do anything except hope the round ended quickly, "diminished abilities" is what we see, and more than what the knees-buckling would've meant as a round decider.

Romero did gas though (I actually bet against him because of the weight cut), so he couldn't capitalize on it in the two rounds he got close to it, and he let the finish get away, making a textbook case for a 10 - 8 under the new rules. Meaning, a fighter got very close to finishing but didn't, and significantly and obviously diminished the abilities of the opponent with effective striking, yet still going to a decision.

As for Conor and Nate, nope. Old rules :D

You stated the old rules for effective striking is the same as the new rules. Hence, so even under the old rules, Conor should have gotten a 10-8 was my argument based on just 'knee buckling' (the phrase as you put it). :lol:
In regards to Romero, based on the latter factor after immediate effective striking, it can be argued that Whittaker could or should have gotten a 10-8 in the first round based on domination.
But more important point, these aren't rules set in stone. Only guidelines. Hence, why the rest of that quote is a recommendation. Not a requirement, and why they realized that in most cases "A 10-8 round in MMA is not the most common score a judge will render." Whittaker won. That's the decision. And it's the right one. ;)
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F.
H.O.F.
Posts: 2006
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 14:42

No man, in the old rules they weren't saying "dish out 10-8's for the evolution of the sport"... They are saying now :) The "knees buckling" just mean that that round would've been won unless the other fighter had buckled the knees of the knee buckler as well and hit him with more strikes :D

It's easy, fighter "A" gets hit with 30 strikes, but throws 1 fight changing strike that hinders fighter "B" nearly unable to continue and impairs his ability to fight. Unless fighter "B" also connects with a near fight-ending strike. those 30 hits he made are worth less than the one that he absorbed.

If, after that, fighter "A" goes for the finish, hits fighter "B" with 30 strikes from the mount, and fighter "B" only survives because the round is over, that's as clear a case for a 10-8 as you're gonna get. Fighter "A" had damage, had volume, had aggression and position. Overwhelming dominance, with a recommendation to reward overwhelming dominance with a 10-8 "for the evolution of the sport" in the books.

The definition of "effective striking" is a past case to be observed, not because "new rules aren't created from scratch", but because that's the coining of the term, and that term was coined (black and white, with important signatures underneath) to euphemize the word "damage" and avoid litigation. If there was a dictionary entry for "effective striking", it would be taken from the book in which the term was created, that's why I said, "effective striking" means "damaging striking", and "damage" as has been clearly exposed a million times, supersedes volume when judging.
FOTY - let's get it going!


Return to “MMA VIDEOS”