GDT: Noche UFC: Grasso vs. Shevchenko 2

[Tobias Kahun]

The only wrong part of any of the score cards is a 10-8 round.

Woulda been fine 48-47 either way.

 

[pistolpete11]

Valentina says she broke her thumb in R1. Probably nixes the trilogy fight being next.

 

[CDJ]

Valentina says she broke her thumb in R1. Probably nixes the trilogy fight being next.

Probably a good thing for everybody involved

 

[BGDDYKWL]

I like to think Mike Bell's scorecard is a protest against a lame scoring system. That's a completely even fight and I'm great with a draw, but the scoring system doesn't really allow it. Bell found a workaround - works for me. The end justifies the means.

If that was his thinking then he should've given Grasso the 4th. Because it was essentially even going into the 5th, and the 5th was fairly even. He could just go 10-10 there. Easier to justify IMO. He backed himself into a corner putting Valentina up 3-1 after 4.

 

[chicagoskycam]

That mistake by Shevchenko in the 5th where Grasso got top position really cost her the W IMO.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I saw some tweeted it out this theory earlier and I can get behind it... after round 5 mike bell saw his scorecard had Shevchenko winning the fight but he believed overall Grasso won so he tried to right a wrong by calling a 10-8

 

[pistolpete11]

I saw some tweeted it out this theory earlier and I can get behind it... after round 5 mike bell saw his scorecard had Shevchenko winning the fight but he believed overall Grasso won so he tried to right a wrong by calling a 10-8

I mean.......I respect Ariel's opinion, but........


........I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[m9]

I like to think Mike Bell's scorecard is a protest against a lame scoring system. That's a completely even fight and I'm great with a draw, but the scoring system doesn't really allow it. Bell found a workaround - works for me. The end justifies the means.

I saw some tweeted it out this theory earlier and I can get behind it... after round 5 mike bell saw his scorecard had Shevchenko winning the fight but he believed overall Grasso won so he tried to right a wrong by calling a 10-8

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier. Do I think it's what really happened? Probably not. But I do think good judges - and Mike Bell is a good judge - probably feel a bit hamstrung by the current scoring format and are therefore being a bit looser in terms of interpreting the rules.

Honestly none of it matters until they make fundamental changes to judging. I've said it 1000x but the first and most important step is taking judges away from cageside and moving them to a room with HDTVs. The technology has caught up with the sport long ago and there is no excuse to not give judges the best opportunity to see the fight. It's insane that people watching at home are better positioned to judge fights than the people who are actually paid to do it.

I'm at the point now where for basically any close round I don't even really care how they score it. If the people involved don't care enough to fix it, I'm not going to care either.

 

[CDJ]

If he’s doing that then he’s not doing his job and he’s f***ing with the fighters money over his own arbitrary rule set. That is not his job. That would, in fact, make him a bad judge. In fact I would argue that would be worse than him giving out a 10-8 round 5 with sincerity.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

After contender series tonight Dana made some comments finally...

 

[Bunk Moreland]

 

[CDJ]

My general rule of thumb is that it’s impossible to get 10-8 when you convincingly lose 3 min of the round unless you have the opponent on the brink of death, and a kinda sorta neck crank ain’t that

 

[m9]

My general rule of thumb is that it’s impossible to get 10-8 when you convincingly lose 3 min of the round unless you have the opponent on the brink of death, and a kinda sorta neck crank ain’t that

I don't think anyone is really arguing otherwise? Pretty much everyone has said it was bad judging

 

[CDJ]

I don't think anyone is really arguing otherwise? Pretty much everyone has said it was bad judging

Nobody did, I’m just still mad because I lost money on it lol

 

[Bunk Moreland]

 

[CDJ]

makes me feel a lot better thanks NSAC!!!

 

[MD thaivuN]

Hilariously, i read that explanation of 10-8 and I kinda see how Mike Bell gives it a 10-8 lol.

The damage aspect was achieved. Duration for sure doesn't apply here. You can debate domination criteria was achieved when Grasso took Valentina's back, rained punches and cranked that neck.

 

[The Devil In I]

Hilariously, i read that explanation of 10-8 and I kinda see how Mike Bell gives it a 10-8 lol.

The damage aspect was achieved. Duration for sure doesn't apply here. You can debate domination criteria was achieved when Grasso took Valentina's back, rained punches and cranked that neck.

She arguably achieved the 2/3 Ds defined there, but think this part disqualifies it -

"A 10-8 doesn't require a fighter to dominate their opponent for 5 minutes of a round. If one fighter has little to no offensive output...and the other fighter achieves 2/3 Ds..."

Kinda hard to say that applies when Shevchenko was credited with more significant strikes in rd 5 than Grasso.

 

[16Skippy]

I'll glad that info is being shared but there is still a lot of subjectivity. Keyword is consider.

 

[m9]

My general thought is that there should be way more 10-8 rounds as it is an effective way to help the correct fighter win the fight if they aren't going to actually fix the system. I applaud Mike Bell for firing off a ton of 10-8 rounds.

But yeah, he was wrong on this one.

 

[Taytro]

Hilariously, i read that explanation of 10-8 and I kinda see how Mike Bell gives it a 10-8 lol.

The damage aspect was achieved. Duration for sure doesn't apply here. You can debate domination criteria was achieved when Grasso took Valentina's back, rained punches and cranked that neck.

I don't see how any of those D's apply here to be honest.

Duration - Grasso only had the advantageous position for 1.5m total of a 5 minute round. I wouldn't say duration is even considered here.

Domination - Grasso certainly dominated briefly during their minute on the ground. However Shevchenko won the previous 3.5 minutes if standup. Hard to declare domination for one fighter when they lost the majority of the round. It's just different strengths/advantages in different positions, not domination.

Damage - Grasso is credited with landing 1 of 7 significant ground strikes. Meaning the rest of the ground strikes were deemed insignificant. Even still, Shevchenko had more significant strikes in the 5th round. She also had double the landed significant head strikes that Grasso landed. That's usually a pretty good indicator of damage.

It's very clear to everyone, including the UFC and the athletic commission, that this was not a 10-8 round. Hence why they had an immediate/emergency training session following the event to try and fix the problem.

I do like the transparency tho.

Also, everyone saying they're happy with a draw becuase it was a close fight even though they know it was bad decision suck. It was a mistake, someone should have won that fight. I don't care who, but it wasn't a draw.