What determines a 10-8 grappling round?

[Phillyboi207]

Quote: Originally Posted by tomitomitomi

Don't you think these statements are quite conflicting? On one hand you are saying that guys have been able to hold a dominant position (back mount) and get 10-8 but then you say that you shouldn't be able to hold a guy down unless there's a big skill gap. Demian Maia wins decisions when the opponent is good enough to survive his grappling whereas if there is a big skill gap he chokes them out quickly. Plus from a realism angle I think you are underestimating how easy it is to hold certain positions. Something like flat back mount is extremely difficult to get out of even without a skill disparity. I don't have an issue with 10-8s if the defending fighter is on pure defense mode while the attacker is attempting offense but rewarding actual stalling is just poor design IMO. (Also for context, I genuinely enjoy Jon Fitch and Askren fights)

I think the issue is I was referring to both real life and video games.

In real life someone will hold back mount and get a 10-8.

In the game it’s pretty difficult to attain those dominant positions and keep them.

If you let your opponent get / hold a dominant position that’s on you and you havent managed to inflict any damage or threaten with any subs the entire round that’s on you.

[Lauriedr1ver]

Quote: Originally Posted by tomitomitomi

@Lauri Phillyboi said "control". That implies purely maintaining position rather than threatening to finish the fight. When John McCarthy talked about domination he was still emphasizing working towards a finish. I love how you state this in such a condescending tone as if it isn't common sense to avoid aspects that make the entertainment product less entertaining for 99% of the audience. Why not add randomly occurring eyepokes and low blows while we're at it? People might not like but it's realistic. It's not a simulator so arguing that something should be added purely because of realism is a weak reasoning. "So mount, back mount, crucifix, side saddle are all dangerous postions you oppenent has to defend to get themselves out. He even says everything is based upon postion, for domination." So why are they getting stood up? Shouldn't the defender try to get out instead? Because when you are on top it is much easier to stall and maintain position whereas attacking leaves you more prone to losing position. It makes no sense to reward the guy on top for not attacking, especially with a 10-8. I am so confused by what exactly is your stance.

Bolded I agree, I wasnt sure what Good grapples was meaning by control either.

Second point sure add them as an option in a sim mode, think that adds a lot of depth to the game. Same with having a cut option that drains block and headmovement until the end of the round. Very realistic gameplay is very appealing to a large audience. Well if you dont think we should argue for realsitic things because its not a simulator I really don't understand what we can argue for then.

Because they currently do get stood up in this game, haz uploaded a video of him getting stood up from mount by denying a few transitions.

Why would they be rewarded for not attacking?

[tomitomitomi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lauriedr1ver

Well if you dont think we should argue for realsitic things because its not a simulator I really don't understand what we can argue for then.

What I meant is that realism shouldn't be prioritized over fun. For example, I don't think it should be possible to break your hands with the first 1-2 you throw just because it can happen in real life. There are some purists who think it should be possible but I believe they are a very small minority.

edit: Obviously there are also things that are both realistic and fun.

Quote:

Because they currently do get stood up in this game, haz uploaded a video of him getting stood up from mount by denying a few transitions. Why would they be rewarded for not attacking?

The way I still understand it, Phillyboy thinks that instead of getting stood up they should be allowed to stay on mount and be given a 10-8 for denying transitions all round with no attempts to finish.

[Phillyboi207]

“The way I still understand it, Phillyboy thinks that instead of getting stood up they should be allowed to stay on mount and be given a 10-8 for denying transitions all round with no attempts to finish.”

Not at all. I want things to mimic real life. You’d get stood up for literally not doing anything but holding position for minutes at a time.

We were just talkin about judging not refereeing. In a hypothetical situation where someone is able to maintain mount without taking damage that would count as a 10-8.

Would that ever happen? No because who wouldnt attempts ANY strikes or subs from a dominant position? Also a ref would stand them up after a couple minutes of literally doing nothing.

Now if the bottom fighter keeps working back to FG or HG and the top fighter keeps getting back to mount/side control I dont think they’d get stood up despite no strikes/subs taking place.

[tomitomitomi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phillyboi207

Not at all. I want things to mimic real life. You’d get stood up for literally not doing anything but holding position for minutes at a time. We were just talkin about judging not refereeing. In a hypothetical situation where someone is able to maintain mount without taking damage that would count as a 10-8. Would that ever happen? No because who wouldnt attempts ANY strikes or subs from a dominant position? Also a ref would stand them up after a couple minutes of literally doing nothing.

This is so confusing. Unless I'm wrong you are stating that.

1. You should get a 10-8 for holding a dominant position for an extended period of time even with no attempt to finish.

2. You should get stood up for holding position for an extended period of time if there is no attempt to finish.

These statements conflict each other. Both judging and refereeing are part of officiating and refereeing can effect scoring (point deduction) so they should support each other.

Besides, I could easily see a scenario where a fighter just stalls a dominant position to win a round 10-8. For instance, imagine its the last round and you're tied in scorecards. Why wouldn't you hold back mount for 90% of the round then try to finish at the final seconds when there is no risk involved? This is of course assuming that holding position is enough to grant a 10-8.

[Phillyboi207]

Quote: Originally Posted by tomitomitomi

This is so confusing. Unless I'm wrong you are stating that. 1. You should get a 10-8 for holding a dominant position for an extended period of time even with no attempt to finish. 2. You should get stood up for holding position for an extended period of time if there is no attempt to finish. These statements conflict each other. Both judging and refereeing are part of officiating and refereeing can effect scoring (point deduction) so they should support each other. Besides, I could easily see a scenario where a fighter just stalls a dominant position to win a round 10-8. For instance, imagine its the last round and you're tied in scorecards. Why wouldn't you hold back mount for 90% of the round then try to finish at the final seconds when there is no risk involved? This is of course assuming that holding position is enough to grant a 10-8.

1) When discussing judging logic/criteria in a vacuum. YES.

I just dont think it’d ever happen due to ref willing to stand a fighter up and a fighter would have to take someone down and literally sustain no damage.

2) YES. Because we were originally discussing judging criteria only.

I also think 4 knockdowns/severe rocks in a round should be a 10-7 but it’d never happen if the ref is doing their job properly since they’d stop the fight.

I think the judging logic should be independent of the ref’s logic. A ref’s job is to protect fighters and enforce rules. A judges job is only to score the fight using the criteria.

[Lauriedr1ver]

Quote: Originally Posted by tomitomitomi

What I meant is that realism shouldn't be prioritized over fun. For example, I don't think it should be possible to break your hands with the first 1-2 you throw just because it can happen in real life. There are some purists who think it should be possible but I believe they are a very small minority. edit: Obviously there are also things that are both realistic and fun. The way I still understand it, Phillyboy thinks that instead of getting stood up they should be allowed to stay on mount and be given a 10-8 for denying transitions all round with no attempts to finish.

I know you were joking about eye pokes and groin shots but you have defo jinxed these weekends fights. 1 groin shot and 1 buckled knee injury that ended fights damn.

[tomitomitomi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phillyboi207

1) When discussing judging logic/criteria in a vacuum. YES. I just dont think it’d ever happen due to ref willing to stand a fighter up and a fighter would have to take someone down and literally sustain no damage. 2) YES. Because we were originally discussing judging criteria only.

Not to be rude but what how does this discourse contribute to the thread then? Aholbert wanted to know what should 10-8 grappling rounds be based on and you contradict your own opinion by saying that the referees wouldn't/shouldn't allow it to happen.

Quote:

I also think 4 knockdowns/severe rocks in a round should be a 10-7 but it’d never happen if the ref is doing their job properly since they’d stop the fight. I think the judging logic should be independent of the ref’s logic. A ref’s job is to protect fighters and enforce rules. A judges job is only to score the fight using the criteria.

So why stand the guys up if there is no need for protection? And the scoring criteria are part of the rules so there should probably be some consistency with how fights are refereed and judges. It would make no sense for the rules to say that 10-8 stall rounds are a thing but the referees are meant to stand them up if they are just stalling.

Plus, the 10-7 rounds are there just in case a fighter miraculously survives the round. They are meant to be extremely rare unlike 10-8s.

Quote:

I know you were joking about eye pokes and groin shots but you have defo jinxed these weekends fights. 1 groin shot and 1 buckled knee injury that ended fights damn.

Don't forget about the broken leg and eyepoke.