twitter google

The mythical 10-7 round

Everyone seems generally okay that Edgar / Maynard 2 went to a draw, but one area of dispute with the scoring was if Gray Maynard deserved a 10-8 round or the practically theoretical 10-7. Not much is known about 10-7 rounds in MMA, mainly because a) they’re given out so infrequently and b) most fights with a 10-7 round don’t make it to a decision. Here’s Dana White talking about them:

“One of the reporters texted me earlier and said listen, what do you think the first round is, and I said 10-8. And he said if that was a 10-8 then 10-7s don’t exist. And I’m the kind of person who thinks a 10-7 is like a unicorn, man. Some people have seen them but they’re very rare.”

As for what constitutes a 10-7, there’s no clear cut answer. Some say 10-8 is for domination while 10-7s are where the ref should have stopped the fight but didn’t. Others say 10-7 is just another stupid carry over from boxing that needs to be trashed. Here’s Michael DiSanto from getting in on the discussion, laying out the Nevada guidelines for a 10-7 and comparing the fight to past ass-whuppings that could have also deserved a 3-point round:

The scoring standard in Nevada dictates that a fighter who dominates a round shall be awarded a score of at least 10-8.  A judge may, in his or her discretion, opt to score the round 10-7, but there is no other objective guidance as to when to score a round 10-8 or 10-7.  By definition, if a fighter “dominates” a round, he wins in clear, one-sided fashion.   See the problem?

Maynard definitely dominated the first round by any standard, so it was at least a 10-8 round.  I am not convinced that he did enough for a 10-7 round, but again, that is a purely subjective decision.  I based my score on the fact that I can think of other bouts where a round was even more one sided without finishing the fight – re-watch, for example, the second round of Junior dos Santos versus Roy Nelson or the first round between Todd Duffee and Mike Russow.  Nobody was calling for a 10-7 score in those rounds, so people shouldn’t be offended by a 10-8 score for the first round of Edgar-Maynard II.

With that said, I cannot argue if anyone opted to score the round 10-7.  Different judges can come to different conclusions after watching a one-sided beating, particularly since there are no objective criteria to choose between 10-8 and 10-7. 

So 10-7s exist, but there’s no guidelines on when they should be used. Don’t you love all the gaps in MMA rules and regulations? It sure is great to have boxing’s retarded scoring system grafted onto our sport with such care and deep thought.

  • frickshun


  • Letibleu

  • Letibleu


  • themachiavellian

    The only fights with a 10-7 round I can think of are Quarry/Starnes and Morgan/Petz.

  • frickshun

    I would qualify a 10-7 as one guy has a limb severed but can continue fighting. Or if he’s decapitated but it’s still hanging on by a skin flap.

  • fishead

    in all honesty, as much as I don’t particularly like Maynard, I scored that first round 10-7… for the domination, and the sheer number of knockdowns… as much as people hate on boxing, they do have a three knockdown rule that stops a fight if a guy gets dropped that many times in a single round… and I believe Edgar went to the canvas three times, if you include that backwards somersault that he pulled…

    He did recover, and I saw him winning 10-9 rounds in the second, fourth and fifth rounds… I saw the third 10-10… I was pretty pleased to see that at least one of the judges came to the same result (although I’m guessing the rounds were scored differently).

  • thingvolds

    allowing a round to be scored 10-7 in a three or five round fight is fucking retarded

  • Reverend Clint

    ^ why call it a 10 point then why not 2 point

  • fishead

    imho, what’s fucking retarded is that roughly 90% of the time a round with an obvious winner is scored the same as round that a fighter barely wins… I’d like to see a lot more rounds scored 10-8, and I think one of the main benefits is that fighters who are winning might be less likely to phone-it-in in the later rounds. I mean, I find it incredibly frustrating when two rounds are quite close, but are both scored 10-9… and then gets his ass handed to him in the third and takes the decision. This is especially true in fights where the only real criteria to decide the round comes down to things like positional control.

    I think the Diaz-StunGun fight from Saturday is a good example of this. Kim was able to secure takedowns and maintain top position, but wasn’t able to do much offensively as he spent the bulk of his time thwarting any attempt Diaz made at subs or sweeps… he did get a few shots in, but never really did any damage. In the third round he looked completely gassed, and got smacked around like a redheaded stepchild… still, he takes it 29-28 across the board – despite the fact that he never really did much damage – or showed much desire to finish the fight. Call me crazy, but I’ve got no problem with that one being scored a draw, too… I don’t think Diaz did enough to win the fight, but at least he was givin’ ‘er in the third round.

  • Symbul

    Right now a 10-7 round isn’t even in judges minds. If you guys want to complain about fighters who outpoint their opponents and play it cautiously, you have to acknowledge that one round’s beatdown is undervalued compared to two barely-won rounds.

    IMO 10-7 should almost be the standard set for 10-8 rounds now (although most judges are too retarded to even ever give out a 10-8) and 10-8 rounds should be given considerably more liberally.

  • Reem.Hadouken

    Meh. It was a good fight, but it wasn’t that amazing.

    The last two rounds there wasn’t much going on, and a lot of Edgars takedowns are just catching a guy off guard during striking, via GSP. One of the takedowns Edgar was already half off his feet throwing a punch. Then he can’t really hold them down, doesn’t try any sub, or strikes? And they stand back up to dance.

    Kudos to Edgar for learning that kind of timing but he was just trying to outpoint in 4 and 5.

    Gray looked pretty tired in 4 and 5 too and wasn’t that urgent in the final round.
    Maybe he thought he’d won on point from round 1 and was coasting.

    I never thought Gray was in trouble either, so their wasn’t really any back and forth to be worried about, just.. “will Edgar catch up in points.” and “Who will these stupid judges give the fight to.”

    I guess that’s drama, but it’s not fight of the year. It’s better than expected.

  • Schrute Boxe

    if anything a 10-7 should be awarded in an instance to punish a fighter (i.e. kalib starnes) rather than reward the opponent

    a 10-8 round is good enough and even then should only be awarded sparingly but who am i kidding this is mma judging

  • Letibleu

    A 10-7 round should only exist when a 10-8 round is warranted plus a point deduction. For Example the kalib Starnes fight.

  • P W

    fishead: That’s why the fighter who comes closest to finish his opponent should always be awarded the win. It really doesn’t have to be more complicated than that.


    @fishhead & PW

    To judge a fight based on one dominating round and then ignoring 80% of what took afterwards is pretty ridiculous way to judge a fight wouldn’t you say?

    The problem is that fans have very selective memories of fights because they tend to tune out the “boring” rounds and say nothing happened. The only case of nothing actually happening was the staring contest between Shamrock and Severn. Outside of that fight, something takes place on a technical level that most of us are unable to appreciate. Every round can’t be filled with non-stop action as high level fighters tend to cancel each other out. Its up to the judges to determine the winner with whatever criteria they have.

    If Diaz couldn’t keep Kim off of him for two-thirds of the fight, then he needs to finish the fight to win. Those are the rules of the game. Using the old Pride judging system panders to fans who don’t appreciate the more technical aspects of the sport that don’t involve someone getting KTFO.

  • frickshun

    ^^WELL SAID!!

  • DJ ThunderElbows

    Golf clap for

  • fishead

    I’m just saying that the way the ten-point-must system is currently employed is flawed. The way rounds are scored now is pretty lame, and they might as well be using a 2-point-must system…

    … and I never said anything about ignoring the rest of the fight, or stated that nothing exciting happened… I merely made the obvious observation that there are often massive differences between rounds that are nearly always given identical scores of 10-9… and provided an example to illustrate my point. What I mean to do is suggest that more of the scale be used so that scorecards can more accurately reflect what went on in a fight (although this will still depend on the way judges subjectively see the fight unfolding)…

  • DJ ThunderElbows

    Good point Fishead.


    The issue isn’t the 10 pt system. The issue is the criteria by which it is applied and the competency of the judges who apply them. What I find strange is how detractors use this last UFC as yet another example of how the 10 pt sucks when in fact this UFC produced two decisions that most people agreed with. Almost everyone agrees a draw between Edgar/Maynard was fair and that Kim dominated Diaz for two rounds. Like it or not, if one guy holds another guy down for two out of three rounds (which is horrible simplification of what took place), that counts as a win. If Diaz has a problem with that, he should work on his BJJ and sweeps.

  • Reverend Clint

    only one judge saw it as a draw though. the other two had completely different ideas as to who won. one out of three is bad odds.

  • DJ ThunderElbows

    Most people saw the third for Maynard when -on first viewing- I saw Frankie sweep the next three and possibly edge out the last.

    Woulda been easier if one of them actually defeated their opponent instead of being given a win by judges, but oh well.

  • agentsmith

    Ask any three random fans how they would have scored that fight and I bet you’ll get three different answers… the same three different answers that the judges gave. Why do we keep expecting judges to be any different?

  • DJ ThunderElbows

    Because we’re pissed the fighters didn’t finish and redirecting our disappointment?


    Rev, the point of judging isn’t consistency. If judging was all about consistency, all the judges would sit in the same spot. The point of judging is majority consensus. So in the case of a close fight where all judges saw the fight differently and the result was a draw, that’s actually the right end result. I’m in the camp that adding more judges and half point increments would actually help.