yodelling wrote:Ok, now we're discussing over nothing 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.
You haven't shown any evidence for this being the case over and over though. In order to do that, you would have had to make a list of all the fights where this happened along with judge's scorecard to show as proof along with judges saying that's what swayed them. Nearly too difficult for either you or me to do. So you're basically making an assumption of your own and believing that to be fact. But since we're making assumptions, I'd also wager there are many fights out there where the guy who landed more volume won even if he did get rocked near the end or taken down.
yodelling wrote: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.
A lot of fighters also assume they would get the nod from the judge for going for a takedown near the end even when they were losing (e.g. one of Diego Sanchez's fights...think it was the Kampmann fight...where he lost the round via strikes but won the round via TD...a lot of fans complained about this). All judges are different so you don't really know what you're going to get and how they come to their decisions and what's going to sway their decision.
yodelling wrote:The subjective part is not whether or not judges are going to enforce the scoring rules (see what I did there ), but how human beings tend to perceive events in time.
Yes, the rules don't matter. They aren't "rules" in practice if they're not enforceable like for the case I mentioned where the guy who landed the buckling shot near the beginning could end up losing the round because he lost by 'volume' for the remainder.
It's ultimately all subjective and the judge can score it based on whatever they feel which is why it's pointless to bring up unenforceable rules (a.k.a. guidelines) to question why the judges do what they do (e.g. "Why didn't the judges score it 10-8 for Whittaker in 1st round?", "Why didn't the judges score it 10-8 for Romero based on rules?", etc. etc. etc). That's my whole point.
The real rule is this: "Here are some guidelines we think you should follow, but if you feel like not following it and make up your own rules to follow that's okay too."
On another note, let's say you didn't know the exact rules, and you decided to use common sense to score the rounds. Common sense being if it was a dominant win then score it 10-8. If it wasn't a dominant round then score it 10-9. Then using common sense without knowing the detailed rules one can arrive at a reasonable score like 47-46 or 46-46 which is what I did. I'd wager though in most cases, common sense judging from fans and supposed "rule-based" judging by judges are in agreement in most cases on who they both believed won the fight.