Fights by Email
FORUM | FIGHTS | MMAUP

ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Serious MMA Forum. MMA + Boxing + Kickboxing is merged. MMA Full Fight Videos, Free UFC Videos, Interviews, UFC Highlights, Weigh-Ins, Previews, ... EMBED or link to the source site! Do not start Spoiler-TOPICS!
User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 2037
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 14:48

But, there are a million factors that can influence a judge's decision to follow the rulebook or not. Ignorance is one of them, the knowledge that Romero couldn't make weight and was pulled out of trying further because the Commission feared for his health, and then see him gassing while trying to finish a knocked-down and groggy Whittaker twice from the mount, could be another. Someone telling them "you have to beat the champ to be the champ" and "no title fight" could be two others, and so on. The argument "the right man won" referencing an infallibility of said dickwads scoring fights is obviously not bringing anything to the table, explain to me how that 49-46 round happened (in this fight) without saying someone is on ****, and I'll take all the rest of whatever you can come up with and eat crow :D
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 2037
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 14:49

c.r.a.c.k.
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 2037
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 14:57

I like all you "fight nerds" (f***** Colby Covington), btw, because I like thinking and talking about fighting (even with those disagreeing with me). All we have to do is look past wrong or right and stick to the game, and there's some certainty to be gained from every event (even if it means some loopy sh*t is going down). I don't believe there's any kind of results being fabricated conspiracy sh*t, but I do believe that a bunch of boxing judges would have to improve dramatically to attain the status of "s.h.i.t." understanding what judging MMA is about. Like Rogan says, some people judging have absolutely no business doing what they're doing.
Last edited by yodelling on Jun 12. 2018, 15:10, edited 1 time in total.
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23416
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 15:10

yodelling wrote: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 Image 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 Image

That's retarded. "The 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."  :lol: Who says that fighter couldn't shake off the cobwebs and come back and won?  Which Whittaker did.
If the sport wants to do it the right way than the judging should be based on the whole round, not just one moment where you get buckled. ;)
yodelling wrote: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.

You're entitled to your opinion of how that round should have been scored.  :lol: We don't really know if Whittaker would have recovered anyway even if the round didn't end.  So it's just speculation.
I could see an argument that Round 3 could have been scored as a 10-8 for Romero, but even if that was case than Round 1 could have been 10-8 for Whittaker based on dominance. So even if I was to give Romero round 3 as 10-8, Whittaker still would have won 49-48 in my book.
yodelling wrote: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.

Doesn't matter because damage is subjective. Which is why the judges got leeway to score the round for the guy who had more accumulated striking.  ;) For example, fighter A might accumulate strikes on fighter B that causes fighter B to have more damage on his face by end of round. But during that round, let's say Fighter B hits fighter A with a hard shot, but fighter A sustains no visible damage and recovers and finishes the round in recovered fighting form. Then in that case, fighter A should get the round.
Which leads to my main point. The rules aren't strict rules. They are just guidelines.  ;) It's ultimately going to be a subjective call where it's up to the judge for example in the case I mentioned above here with Fighter A and Fighter B.
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 2037
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 15:28

Kizzo wrote:That's retarded. "The 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." Who says that fighter couldn't shake off the cobwebs and come back and won?  Which Whittaker did.
If the sport wants to do it the right way than the judging should be based on the whole round, not just one moment where you get buckled.


No it's not retarded, and it says right there in the book that immediate is more important than cumulative. They cannot measure cumulative damage (no one has an "energy bar" above their heads :D ), they can measure loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control one's limbs for a moment :D So my example meant, unless the guy "recovering" could throw something to equally damage the guy that landed the big strike, he lost that round on "immediate" being more important than cumulative.


Kizzo wrote:I could see an argument that Round 3 could have been scored as a 10-8 for Romero, but even if that was case than Round 1 could have been 10-8 for Whittaker based on dominance. So even if I was to give Romero round 3 as 10-8, Whittaker still would have won 49-48 in my book.


I could agree to that, although my opinion would then be that Whittaker only had volume and not enough damage for an overwhelming round win. That eye getting shut so soon could be made a case of. Bottom line, that would've been a 47-46 that I can live with. 48-47 or 49-46 I cannot because they cannot be justified in any way.

Kizzo wrote:Doesn't matter because damage is subjective. Which is why the judges got leeway to score the round for the guy who had more accumulated striking.  ;) For example, fighter A might accumulate strikes on fighter B that causes fighter B to have more damage on his face by end of round. But during that round, let's say Fighter B hits fighter A with a hard shot, but fighter A sustains no visible damage and recovers and finishes the round in recovered fighting form. Then in that case, fighter A should get the round.
Which leads to my main point. The rules aren't strict rules. They are just guidelines.  ;) It's ultimately going to be a subjective call where it's up to the judge for example in the case I mentioned above here with Fighter A and Fighter B.


It's written in the previous book that strikes leading to cuts, grimaces, loss of balance etc, should be evaluated with priority over number of strikes. I'm not making this up, it's literally saying "you only count volume if the number of damaging strikes is equal by both". Thinking about it, that closing eye of Romero might have made the case stronger for Whittaker, though...

Remember, fights are won per round. So you rock me, I hit you 30 times, you won the round in which you rocked me if I didn't cut you, rock you or produced anything at least as visible as the moment I got rocked. Next round we start from scratch, and if you don't rock me again, I beat you on volume with me 30 strikes. And so on. It's not a guideline, it's the assignment of value to action "A" or "B"...
FOTY - let's get it going!

SakuSamurai
FEATHERW. CHAMP
FEATHERW. CHAMP
Posts: 149
Joined: Mar 26. 2013, 13:31

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby SakuSamurai » Jun 12. 2018, 16:02

xSamWaynex wrote:
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?

Fedor did beat the living shit out of Noguiera, but he didnt do shit with it (meaning he didnt finish).
Its a fight. The guy is hitting the other guy very hard, make him fall, stumble, look waisted. He doesnt need to do any shit with it. 
Whittacker connected a good amount of shots on Romero, but didnt do shit with it. Thats the logic.
The logic goes on: the beating was just the power shots(!) so a big amount of weak shots was missing to make it a serious beating ;)

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23416
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 16:11

yodelling wrote:No it's not retarded


It is retarded to score it that way for the scenario I described.

yodelling wrote:and it says right there in the book that immediate is more important than cumulative.


It doesn't matter what it says "in the book". They aren't rules. They're only guidelines. Deviations are allowed.  

yodelling wrote:They cannot measure cumulative damage (no one has an "energy bar" above their heads  ),


Didn't say you can measure it objectively. Said it was "subjective".  That's the very nature of judging.

yodelling wrote:they can measure loss of consciousness


Consciousness means "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings".  Sure Whittaker was rocked because he took a hard punch, but Whittaker was aware at all times of what was going on to be able to defend himself from taking more strikes and do what he had to do to recover before engaging in striking again.

yodelling wrote:or loss of ability to control one's limbs for a moment :D



A "moment" shouldn't count more than the round. ;)

yodelling wrote:So my example meant, unless the guy "recovering" could throw something to equally damage the guy that landed the big strike, he lost that round on "immediate" being more important than cumulative.


Retarded. What if Fighter A was dominating the whole round with 99 strikes to 0. Gets hit with 1 shot that rocks him. Has 10 seconds left on the ****, takes 5 seconds to recover, and spends the next 5 seconds to just wait out the ****. You're going to give Fighter B 10-8 based on that? :lol:

yodelling wrote:I could agree to that, although my opinion would then be that Whittaker only had volume and not enough damage for an overwhelming round win. That eye getting shut so soon could be made a case of.


The book says a 10-9 should only be scored if it's a close round. Round 1 wasn't close.

yodelling wrote:Bottom line, that would've been a 47-46 that I can live with. 48-47 or 49-46 I cannot because they cannot be justified in any way.


Well, it's not like you have a choice. You'll have to live with it. :lol:

My scoring:

Rd. 1: Whittaker 10-8
Rd. 2: Whittaker 10-9
Rd. 3: Romero 10-8
Rd. 4: Whittaker 10-9
Rd. 5: Romero 10-9

Whittaker 47
Romero 46

Or

Whittaker 47
Romero 47

Draw at best.

yodelling wrote:It's written in the previous book that strikes leading to cuts, grimaces, loss of balance etc, should be evaluated with priority over number of strikes. I'm not making this up, it's literally saying "you only count volume if the number of damaging strikes is equal by both". Thinking about it, that closing eye of Romero might have made the case stronger for Whittaker, though...


Yeah, the closing eye. There you go for Whittaker. ;) <---smiley's eye closed (pun intended)?

yodelling wrote:Remember, fights are won per round. So you rock me, I hit you 30 times, you won the round in which you rocked me if I didn't cut you, rock you or produced anything at least as visible as the moment I got rocked.


What happens if fighter A beats the snot out of fighter B, but fighter B throws an elbow that cuts fighter A because fighter A cuts easily? Should that round go to fighter B as a 10-8? That's retarded.

yodelling wrote:Next round we start from scratch, and if you don't rock me again, I beat you on volume with me 30 strikes. And so on. It's not a guideline, it's the assignment of value to action "A" or "B"...


A guideline is "a general rule, principle, or piece of advice." So yeah, it's not a strict rule that needs to be followed and deviations are allowed and can't be punished.
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23416
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 16:20

SakuSamurai wrote:The guy is hitting the other guy very hard, make him fall, stumble, look waisted. He doesnt need to do any shit with it.

One doesn't need to throw any strikes in a fight either and can run for the whole fight as well. :lol: Likely one would do that? Not so.
I'd like to think most would feel the need to go for the finish if they got their opponents rocked and in trouble. Not many could get it. ;)
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 2037
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 16:30

Kizzo wrote:Retarded. What if Fighter A was dominating the whole round with 99 strikes to 0. Gets hit with 1 shot that rocks him. Has 10 seconds left on the ****, takes 5 seconds to recover, and spends the next 5 seconds to just wait out the ****. You're going to give Fighter B 10-8 based on that? :lol:


Dude. You're missing my point, that scenario would land him a 10-9 victory for that round, not at all overwhelming dominance.

You're mixing two concepts when we're discussing about two separate things, winning a round on damage vs winning a 10-8. You can always "steal" a round with a brilliant hit close to the bell if you rock your opponent (even in the old system), a.k.a. damage rules, you CANNOT in this situation also get a 10-8 because you're way behind on number of strikes, position, aggression etc. But you get a 10-9 instead of giving away a round.

HOWEVER, If you done near fight-ending damage and ALSO have volume on your opponent, to that ALSO top position and position control, then you did everything there's to be done short of ending the fight and you've got yourself a 10-8.

Two different things. And you could refrain from using the word "retarded" out of respect to mentally disabled people. Not because of PC shit, but because I know a couple mentally disabled people that really don't deserve the stereotype...


Kizzo wrote:Well, it's not like you have a choice. You'll have to live with it. :lol:

My scoring:

Rd. 1: Whittaker 10-8
Rd. 2: Whittaker 10-9
Rd. 3: Romero 10-8
Rd. 4: Whittaker 10-9
Rd. 5: Romero 10-9

Whittaker 47
Romero 46

Or

Whittaker 47
Romero 47

Draw at best.


Amen to the part in bold, like I said, I could also have lived with 47-46 and the draw, I can see a case for both :) It's not so much about the result, as it is about explaining to me how they got to it...

Kizzo wrote:What happens if fighter A beats the snot out of fighter B, but fighter B throws an elbow that cuts fighter A because fighter A cuts easily? Should that round go to fighter B as a 10-8? That's retarded.


Again man, not a 10-8 (two different discussions), but yes to a 10-9. That's a clear example of a "stolen" round. Remember Machida vs Jones? It's exactly what you were describing, that second round would've been Jones' even if Lyoto came back striking like he did in R1 and didn't end up finished in it. Why do you think strikers are terrified of getting close to wrestlers in the final minute of a successful round against them? Beat your opponent up for 4 minutes, get taken down and sliced open and you lost the round (NOT A 10-8, but you lost the round).

Kizzo wrote:A guideline is "a general rule, principle, or piece of advice." So yeah, it's not a strict rule that needs to be followed and deviations are allowed and can't be punished.


The guideline is to dish out more 10-8's, for that all you need is to establish dominance, you cannot have more dominance than what Romero had on R3... That's what Rogan (if I remember correctly) was saying, "if that wasn't a 10-8 round, there aren't 10-8 rounds", and that's what bothers me: they signal change, sign a paper, and aren't able to get their boneheads around it.
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23416
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 16:42

yodelling wrote:
Kizzo wrote:Retarded. What if Fighter A was dominating the whole round with 99 strikes to 0. Gets hit with 1 shot that rocks him. Has 10 seconds left on the ****, takes 5 seconds to recover, and spends the next 5 seconds to just wait out the ****. You're going to give Fighter B 10-8 based on that? :lol:


Dude. You're missing my point, that scenario would land him a 10-9 victory for that round, not at all overwhelming dominance.

Even giving it a 10-9 to fighter B is retarded. That round should go to Fighter A in that case. Which leads to my point that trying to apply the guidelines as strict rules leads to retarded judgments like this.
yodelling wrote:You're mixing two concepts when we're discussing about two separate things, winning a round on damage vs winning a 10-8. You can always "steal" a round with a brilliant hit close to the bell if you rock your opponent (even in the old system), a.k.a. damage rules, you CANNOT in this situation also get a 10-8 because you're way behind on number of strikes, position, aggression etc. But you get a 10-9 instead of giving away a round.

See my comment above. A 10-9 in this case is not a good judgment call either.
yodelling wrote:HOWEVER, If you done near fight-ending damage and ALSO have volume on your opponent, to that ALSO top position and position control, then you did everything there's to be done short of ending the fight and you've got yourself a 10-8. Two different things.

I did say I gave Romero a 10-8. :lol:

yodelling wrote:And you could refrain from using the word "retarded" out of respect to mentally disabled people. Not because of PC shit, but because I know a couple mentally disabled people that really don't deserve the stereotype...

When I use the word "retarded" it's not a knock at people with down syndrome. Just I find the logic behind it not very intelligent.

yodelling wrote:Amen to the part in bold, like I said, I could also have lived with 47-46 and the draw, I can see a case for both :) It's not so much about the result, as it is about explaining to me how they got to it...


Well, there you go. We agree somewhat on what the score could/shoud have been that is live-able with. Good luck in getting an explanation tho from the judges.

/"yodelling wrote:Again man, not a 10-8 (two different discussions), but yes to a 10-9. That's a clear example of a "stolen" round. Remember Machida vs Jones? It's exactly what you were describing, that second round would've been Jones' even if Lyoto came back striking like he did in R1 and didn't end up finished in it. Why do you think strikers are terrified of getting close to wrestlers in the final minute of a successful round against them? Beat your opponent up for 4 minutes, get taken down and sliced open and you lost the round (NOT A 10-8, but you lost the round).


I disagree. ;) 

yodelling wrote:The guideline is to dish out more 10-8's, for that all you need is to establish dominance, you cannot have more dominance than what Romero had on R3... That's what Rogan (if I remember correctly) was saying, "if that wasn't a 10-8 round, there aren't 10-8 rounds", and that's what bothers me: they signal change, sign a paper, and aren't able to get their boneheads around it.


It's likely there is corruption involved rather than incompetent judging imo. ;)
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 2037
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 17:25

Then you're disagreeing with the rules, while I'm disagreeing with a decision that makes no sense based on our given set of rules... Corruption could too explain why nothing seems to work at this point :lol:
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
Kizzo
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 23416
Joined: Jun 30. 2013, 19:00

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby Kizzo » Jun 12. 2018, 18:21

yodelling wrote:Then you're disagreeing with the rules, while I'm disagreeing with a decision that makes no sense based on our given set of rules... Corruption could too explain why nothing seems to work at this point :lol:

You're disagreeing with the scoring rather than the decision. Because you even admitted yourself you can live with a win for Whittaker as long it was 47-46. ;)

As I pointed out, if the rules were strictly applied, then a fighter who was rocked in the first 5 seconds of the round, but who managed to recover in 10 seconds and dominated the remainder of the round for 4:45 to lose that round.  That's stupid imo. :P  What I'm disagreeing with is any argument that is put forth implying that they are strict rules that must be followed to the T.  They're not.  It's why you got 3 different judges who can come to 3 different conclusions because judging is not something that is objective like per se like scoring a basketball point.

*** Here's a tip on knowing what the real rules are. Or atleast the ones that matter to the Commission. ;) "Real rules" are the ones that are actually enforced and if it's not followed there are penalties.   If they aren't enforced nor really practiced, then it's just literally a bunch of words on paper (or as I like to call them "guidelines"). ;)
CRI XCVIII Champ
LMS XIII Champ

User avatar
yodelling
H.O.F. CRI1
H.O.F. CRI1
Posts: 2037
Joined: Dec 5. 2010, 05:37

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby yodelling » Jun 12. 2018, 19:47

Ok, now we're discussing over nothing :D the 10-8 recommendation is a guideline, as for the most significant strike of the round winning you the round irrespective of volume, this happens over and over and hardly we hear anyone complaining because it's the rule by which strikes are weighed.

The subjective part is not whether or not judges are going to enforce the scoring rules (see what I did there :D ), but how human beings tend to perceive events in time.

Ever notice how a ton of fighters today do whatever they can to land the hardest blow after the 10s warning sounds? That's because judges may be swayed to believe that guy "won" the round on this or that effective strike if that's the "last" thing they saw happen before putting it down on paper. That's the subjectivity of it all.

So yes, a round with the most significant blow happening in the opening seconds won't necessarily be scored for that strike because too much happens in between, HOWEVER, one that had it happen near the dying seconds tends to go for whoever lands the hardest closing flurry way more often than not...

Whether I like this or not has nothing to do with the fact that that's how fights are judged, so much so that these point fighting strategies get employed by every winning coach out there
FOTY - let's get it going!

User avatar
JeremyHorn
FEATHERW. CHAMP
FEATHERW. CHAMP
Posts: 114
Joined: Sep 17. 2014, 13:51

Re: ROBERT WHITTAKER vs YOEL ROMERO 2

Postby JeremyHorn » Jun 12. 2018, 23:49

btylerb72 wrote:Romero is a walking steroid.

He might have looked ordinary in Pride 
"Who hit you the hardest in your career?" Roy Nelson " My Dad"


Return to “MMA VIDEOS”