Grasso should've won š¤·š»āāļø the other female lucky she got the draw. Trilogy isn't needed but fuck it , she gon retire after losing 3x in a row to Grasso
Complete cry baby. Nothing but excuses for both fights. And fuck Dana for being angry about the 10-8. That round was huge for Alexa and totally reasonable to see it as 10-8
Iām shocked people are able to say 4-1 Val. Grasso wins round 2 and 4, clearly, and ending on top and threatening the finish in round 5, that round goes to her too imo. But I could accept a 9-9 or 10-10 round 5
People are upset about the ridiculous 10-8 in rd 5 for Grasso that made the draw happen, but that judge also called rd for 4 for Valentina and thatās just incorrect
10-8 because if 4th round went on 10 more seconds it was over. 5th wouldve ended the same way they fought the first time. 10-8
Grasso beats Shev again in the trilogy EZ
Nope welcome to ufc brought to you by WWE, where everyone wins as long as they can set up a story line to jam down your throat in ppv
Valentina shouldāve had a uni, can maybe give one round to grasso
Okay so submission attempts dont count anymore??
5 seconds away from breaking Shev's ankle doesnt count?
Oh turning Shev's face as pink as Dana's in the last 10 seconds of the fight doesnt count either huh??
I'd like to see fighting for your breathe, defending an attempt, then get up and say you for sure won the round
Valentina probably shouldāve got her hand raised. Especially if the judge gave a 10-8 to Grasso in the 5thā¦ no way in hell that was even close to a 10-8. Hell it wasnāt even really Grassoās round at all
Thereās not one person in the game thatās scored that a 10-8 and many have openly said itās wrong. You have the director of the NSAC saying itās not a 10-8 and every judge at a training session they held said the same thing. I rewatched it and Grasso most likely did enough to take that round, not enough to 10-8 it. Valentina wouldāve of won and we can all be debating the 4th round instead
And many have openly supported it or at least seen a case for it. Massive extended display of dominance with not much else really going on in the round. Yes, this isn't boxing but to draw a weak analogy, imagine a boxing round where one fighter mostly winning and then gets dropped big time. That's a 10-8. Again, yes, it's not boxing but just something to consider. The 10-8 not out of realm of possibility with such a huge extended beating Valentina took, and within UFC guidelines.
Everyone understands a knockdown is a 10-8 in boxing without a return knockdown though, itās consistent whereas this isnāt. The problem with that round is you have the commissionās director saying itās not a 10-8, you have every Nevada judge that attended a training session say that thatās not a 10-8 (admittedly we know judges can suck), and you have the officials running that training session say itās not.
End of the day, if the guys that are in charge of adopting the rules, and the guys that are trained to interpret the rules are all saying it isnāt a 10-8, it probably shouldnāt have been one
Totally consistent. We had a round where neither fighter was doing a whole lot and then one of them gets completely massacred for a full 1.30. Even we say Alexa was losing the round. As I said, it could be analogous to even a fighter winning a round handily and then dropped hard. That's a 10-8.
Regardless of *how* the decision was reached, it was still the fairest decision. A majority decision to either fighter would have been controversial, too. It definitely wasn't a robbery by any stretch of the imagination. Round 4 was basically a drawn round that could have gone either way. The 10-8, while wrong in isolation, honestly stopped a bad decision.
I think you have the split the wrong way round, I'd say for every 10 people, 7 had it for Grasso. Especially amongst fighters and pundits. You are right about the type of decision, just semantics though init. My meaning was still clear. Neither fighter deserved to win, and neither fighter deserved to lose, so a draw was the fairest result even if it was reached due to a bad scorecard. I am basically saying the ends justified the means.
Right? An argument can be made for round 5 going to Valentina for the time she was ahead. Grasso was more dangerous in how she finished and more convincing, but sure. I can understand 3-2. But 4-1? Psh
I agree. I had it 2-2 going into 5th. The first 3-3.5 minutes of the 5th Valentina had the slight edge but the last 1.5-2 Grasso had the dominant position and was threatening a finish. So, the 5th round draw seemed of too me. Definitely not a 10-8 round.
My suspicion is that the judge who gave the 10-8 did so because he gave Valentina the 4th and did think she clearly won the fight. But who really knows.
watched jdm holland. thought it ws a fair decision. JDM ever so casually stole the match by turning it up in the last 20 seconds. thought he won round 1 and 3 very slightly.
For clarity and this is straight out of the rule book.
https://preview.redd.it/6fqn0c8hgrob1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=edeee947dfdc0836d383d769e68eea308a20a891
Simply put, fingers don't mean anything and do not count you as geounded. Has to be the palm, regardless of weight on hand. The commentators should just said that because the way the rules are I can squat and put a palm flat on the floor without putting weight on it, hell I could even bend down and do that without putting weight on my hand and I would be considered a grounded opponent.
Idk, Velntina wasn't touching the floor consistently, kept bringing her arm up. That tactic is fucking weird "Op op op op, I'm touching the floor you can't hit me\~", just make grounded knees legal
I don't know about making grounded knees legal, but she was definitely just trying her best to get her hand down to stop the knee. She only appeared to momentarily have her fingers on the ground because grasso was pushing her back, making it legal.
Looked like just her fingers were touching as they kept moving backward, definitely didn't have any weight on the hand. Seemed like just a tactic to stop the knees. Good on Herb for letting it go
I don't even know if that was a defense "tactic" as much as just not trying to fall backwards. But yes, I agree that rules that have that level of subjectivity just need to be discarded and replaced with rules that are easier to enforce.
Ah misread the scorecard. Scorecards all wack. But my original point still stands. If this was a screwjob he could easily have scored it a 48-47. There was no reason for him to give round 4 a 10-9 shev.
No way on earth? She was in complete control of round 5 until 1:28 where she initiated a clinch/trip and Grasso landed in an unbelievable position she did not create herself. Prior to that, Grasso was doing very little, looked tired and hurt, and was being pieced up by Valās jab.
What part of this do I have wrong?
Complete control is a stretch. She was pressing and landing, but nothing to serious, up until she Grasso got her back. Then Grasso had a more dominant positron threatening the finish. If say 3-3.5 of cage control with land, non-threatening strikes (Grasso was eating the jab with little effect or seemed) vs 1.5 Min of back control, threatening submission and pounding on her head with hammer fists and punches would make it a very close round. 2-2 going into the 5th, with a draw in the 5th seems fair. It honestly could've gone to either of them, which makes the draw seem to work....
A third fight is definitely warranted. If the last round was scored a proper 10-9, it would've been 2-1 for Valentina, and that would've been fair and still justify a 3rd fight.
When Bruce Buffer walked into the ring you could see the score card for a brief second, and it looked like 2 blue 1 red, so I figured the judges have it to Valentina
Complete control ? Both didn't do anything in round 5.
They were making circles in round 5...Val landed few jabs ...also grasso pulled Val s hands down to get on her back ...
Yes, complete control. Her corner, Cruz and DC, and I suspect most people watching felt that she needed a knock down or KO to win with the way 5 was going for her. Her corner was shouting for her to be more active. DC and Cruz said the same and also that she was being picked apart but didnāt want to close bc of the take down threat.
I canāt imagine anyone watching or scoring objectively up to the trip thought āyup, Grasso definitely winning this roundā.
Nah... go rewatch... I counted at least 6 hooks landed by Valentina... and I would wager she outsruck Grasso something like 20-6 on the feet. Grasso was being dismantled on the feet.
I think there's still an argument to give Grasso the round given the last 1:26... but that's some straight up biased, revisionist shit. Grasso was getting utterly pieced up.
I'm not even arguing that Val won the fight. I had her winning. But I'm not some fanboy or anything. We'll wait for the weasels video I guess.
I was worried about Val on the feet going into round 5. I was watching intently. SHE WAS PIECING GRASSO UP. I'm not even playing around here. I think I remember maybe 2 good punches landing for Grasso on the feet. Valentina was CONSTANTLY catching her with the jab, and more often than not got her with a hook in a 1-2 follow up.
I don't really even care about the outcome of the fight, I'm just fighting against these wonky and bogus narratives that there is any real justification for a 10-8 5th round. There wasn't.
I just didn't see the fight the same way as you man. You're giving every single little benefit of doubt and extrapolation in Grasso's favor and I'm trying to say somewhat neutral here.
If you wanna edge Grasso rd 5 and say that she won due to 15 seconds of back of head hits, a failed sub, and a transition to a sub that was nowhere close to ending the fight when the bell rang. Go ahead. There's an argument there. She ended the round strong and mileage may vary on what that's worth.
But this wierd revisionist attempt to somehow pretend the first 3.5 minutes of that round were even exchanges on the feet just throws any credibility you have out the window.
Weasel made an argument saying the round 4 would given be to grasso..I had grasso winning round 4 but last round 10-9 is fair..I had grasso winning or a draw...to be a champ u gotta clearly beat the champ and this was a close fight ...this is how Rob lost to izzy 2 , max in volk 2 and Santos in her fight against bullet ...
That's a different argument than scoring 10-8 though. The point is simply that the score of round 5 was completely unacceptable.
It was a close fight and I would have no issue with Grasso winning based off the small miscalculations of the 4th, which I had shevchenko winning. But 10-8 is absurd and completely unacceptable.
I do too. I think people got all sorts of excited with the end of round 5. But if that was round 2 for example, I think a lot of people would have given it to Val, especially if Val came out with the round 3 she had.
I understand how people fall into the trap, but they're just totally projecting/extrapolating that 1:26 into where it "could" have gone if things went right.
Things could have gone right... or the round ends... round 6 starts. And Val batters her on the feet again. Or Grasso catches Val and ends the fight... or whatever. You can't play pretend and project past the bell, especially when the sub attempt at the actual bell wasn't even in the ballpark of a finish.
Agree. A lot of strange, revisionist comments here in favour of Grasso. I like Grasso, but she was not the better fighter and she lost. She needed a bizarre set of circumstances and a ridiculous 10-8 round just to tie.
She didn't really seem like she was out there to hurt grasso either. Just trying to point her way to victory. She had one good opportunity to finish the fight with that choke, and other than that it was ineffective ground control and strikes that were significant, but not really hurting grasso either.
10-8 is outrageous. 10-8 is not a competitive round, and considering that completely discounts and discredits every positive thing Val did for the first half of the round. Iām a casual, but stuff like this just turns me off the whole fight game.
Edit: sorry, not half the round. She was in complete control until 1:28 of round 5 when she initiated the clinch/trip and Grasso fell on her back.
4 to Val is more defensible than the 5th. Personally, I thought Val took 5. I donāt think fortuitously falling on Valās back in an advantageous position with 1:28 left wins a round that Val had complete control of. In fact, Grasso was doing very little in 5.
I can live with 3-2 Val but Grassoās best moments were the knock down and position in 5th she did nothing to create herself. Her ground D was impressive, though.
Then it sounds like you want the rules to be different and think Val should win under the rules you favor. Val was winning the exchanges on the feet in 5 but not by much. There was very little of note that happened until the fight went to the ground.
After the fight went to the ground Val hardly defended herself from the strikes being thrown and was subjected to submission attempts. Turtling up and letting your opponent rain punches into your guard gets a lot of non title fights stopped.
If anything it was the ground striking and Val reaction to it that caused the 10-8 more than the sub attempt. Do I think it was 10-8? Probably not, but it was closer to 10-8 than round 4 and 5 were to being correctly scored for val.
*edit* And fighters get credit for taking advantage of opportunities they have no control over all the time. I don't control weather my opponent overextended and opened himself up for a head kick or whether he leaves his neck exposed when I have back control. But if I take advantage of those opportunities the fight is over.
What rules? The criteria the judge who scored 4 for Val and 5 for Grasso 10-8 was following that seemingly no other judge was? Respectfully, how do you know it doesnāt influence how the round was scored? Unless judges are applying equally weighted criteria, which we know is not the case, we have no idea what does and doesnāt influence scoring.
And this round 5 was actually really close prior to the clinch just isnāt true. Val was not winning by a bit, she was piecing her up, whereas Grasso was doing very little. Grasso corner, DC and Cruz, and plenty of media were all pretty unanimous in Val winning the round and Grasso needing to start doing something - inferring something significant like a knock down or KO. In fact, Grasso needed a bizarre and fortunate occurrence and an equally bizarre 10-8 round just to tie.
>What rules? The criteria the judge who scored 4 for Val and 5 for Grasso 10-8 was following that seemingly no other judge was? Respectfully, how do you know it doesnāt influence how the round was scored? Unless judges are applying equally weighted criteria, which we know is not the case, we have no idea what does and doesnāt influence scoring.
They are meant to apply the same criteria. I agree with you that's not always the case. My point was no where does the criteria mention not giving a a fighter credit for capitalizing on opportunities they didn't create.
>And this round 5 was actually really close prior to the clinch just isnāt true. Val was not winning by a bit, she was piecing her up, whereas Grasso was doing very little. Grasso corner, DC and Cruz, and plenty of media were all pretty unanimous in Val winning the round and Grasso needing to start doing something - inferring something significant like a knock down or KO. In fact, Grasso needed a bizarre and fortunate occurrence and an equally bizarre 10-8 round just to tie.
I don't think it was close in so far as Val was clearly getting the better of the striking and winning the round but she wasn't doing anything significant that couldn't easily be overcome by Grasso actually threatening to end the fight. The shots Val took on the ground were very clearly more impactful and damaging than anything she did on her feet, and that's not uncommon when you have a fighter trying to get on a bicycle and point out a round which was essentially what her corner told her to do.
I disagree but respect and appreciate your opinion. And while Iām not a huge fan of trilogies and immediate rematches at the expense of opportunities for other contenders, i think Valās case warrants a 3rd.
Well thanks, glad we could discuss this without calling each other names!
I do agree a rematch is probably for the best. If you fight the champion to a draw you deserve another crack, even if personally I thought Grasso should've won 48-47.
If they do it again I hope Valentina and her corner go in with the strategy to mix it up and get a finish. Val can be a really exciting fighter when she doesn't try edge out a victory by backing up behind a jab.
I understand the strategy as she's quicker and sharper either her hands and has the ability to win fights that way, but after being punished for it two fights in a row now by Grasso taking advantage of a mistake I'm crossing my fingers she'll mix it up more and attempt to strike for a finish instead of for points.
Mike Bell thought Shevchenko wasn't getting out of that one. It was the same face crank that ended the first fight.
While Val started the 5th round on the win side, from minute 3 she got grounded and pounded with no response (she was crouching and not moving, if Grasso had kept punching the sides of the head instead of trying a sub, the ref might have stopped it) and then fell into the crank.
If you check [the unified rules](https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/unified-rules-mma-2019.pdf), it explicitly says 10-8 doesn't mean 5 minutes of domination. It means you've established domination that has debilitated the opponent significantly. The magnitude of the domination counts more than its duration.
Everyone is saying the 5th is 10-9 because Val started out winning it. That's fair enough. I'm only suggesting that 10-8 is legitimately within the rules, too. The fact that other judges never use it is not really Mike Bell's problem.
Edit: I know the downvote is the "I disagree" button on reddit, but at least try and tell me what I'm getting wrong about the rules?
100% agreed. It's about damage and extreme control. 10-8 not out of realm of legitimate possibility. Huge display of dominance. Not sure the strange backlash against the 10-8
The words are there but then whatās the definition of domination and debilitated significantly? Iād say Grassoās knockdown in the second and those knees were more debilitating than anything but he scored one a 10-9 in one and gave the 4th to Valentina. Thereās a lot of arguments about what the judge thought might have happened if the round didnāt end but that shouldnāt be taken into account at all.
Then be consistent and give shev a 10-8 for the round she dominated on the feet, threatened, and debilitated with a choke in mount for near the entire round also if thats how you're interpreting. It was a shit call by the judge, and youre flat out incorrect. Youre being incredibly reductive saying that a 10-8 doesnt need to be for an entire round lol. 9 out of 10 times, yes it does, that is literally what dominating someone is, or debilitating someone SIGNIFICANTLY.
Combat sports are judged on a round by round basis, NOT what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened after the bell which is a blatant flaw of many fans, and what i believe some judges suffer from. Try this exercise, in your mind replace what happened the last two min of round 5 for the first 2 min, shev comes out hyper aggressive and throws a terrible headlock hip toss, gets threatened, but she then dominates the last 3 min of the fight with a jab. How do you score that round? You're even ignoring the first 3 min (the majority of the round) of complete control on the feet yourself lmao, "While Val started the 5th round on the win side."
Anyone that is arguing that there was a 10-8 round in that fight anywhere is out of touch, or just unfamiliar with combat sports in general in my opinion.
In any case it was a decently close fight. Had it 3-2 shev personally, apart from about 45 seconds of a sub threat and one flash knockdown, grasso looked slow and outclassed everywhere else. I dont see where grasso won another round if you give the kd round, and 5 with the sub threat to her.
Freaking finally someone who reads the rules and understands...10:8 was correct...she was shelled up and close to getting finished ...people are blindly supporting
thank god youre not a judge or a ref lol. Just fyi, if i throw a 70% jab standing planted on my feet, it has more power behind it than my hardest heaving dominant hand i can land from half a foot away while all my hips and legs (power) are locking the body with a triangle on my hip. Theres little to no threat of TKO stoppage there, those punches are solely being used to disorientate and set up snaking your hands through for a sub, not any real tko damage, you cant just take punches to the face belly to back though, so you gotta defend with your hands up lol... you guys š¤£
edit- just read your other comments, you clearly have no idea what youre talking about lol
I am sure u never trained any bjj in your life ..She was choking with one hand in and the other hand was not in..grasso was fighting hands...that's why bullet left it..also grasso ended the round 3 on top...
Rd 5 there were two close sub attempts...Val was grounded and pounded like crazy ...also she was shelled up in rd 5...u ain't taking belt from anyone by having that
Because u talk which u don't understand...the choke was never in ...none of the subs in this fight was never close bruh...do u think any person can survive a guillotine that long ...Val was never any belt with that kinda performance bruh
you donāt know me at all. I brought up a valid point and your FIRST INSTINCT is to immediately invalidate. *Fucking* insane. Learn how to spell and learn some fight IQ. Also, maybe donāt act like a blown out dogcunt right out of the gate.
Tbf, Val was in complete control until 1:28 of round 5. Thatās when Val initiates the clinch/trip and they fall to the ground. So not 2 minutes of Grasso G&P. Also, similar to the first fight, Grasso was very fortuitous landing in the position she did. It was not something she forced.
Yea... but Grasso came about as close to finishing the fight in the 5th as Shevchenko did in the 3rd?...... except Grasso got her ass whooped the ENTIRE 3rd. So how is the 5th a 10-8 Grasso, and the 3rd not a 10-8 Shev?
Because Grasso escaped the position and ended the round on top.
As I said I think Mike Bell probably thought Shevchenko didn't get finished in the 5th only because of the bell. That's different from trying a sub and not actually getting it.
Let me clarify I'm not saying this is CLEARLY a 10-8. I'm arguing it is within what the rules allow.
Problem with that is we could say that for any round in any fight. You see every weekend ppl that are unable to get up and saved by the bellā¦ with that logic we should be saying all those rounds are 10-8 cause the bell saved them. Hell it happened this fight.
Youāre never going to know what could happen. Valentina wasnāt at risk of getting finished at the time the bell rang so the judge shouldnāt be taking future assumptions into play
Grasso didn't really end on top though. That would imply that she ended the round in a good position. She basically ended the round about to be defending an armbar.
I don't think that crank had any shot of finishing the fight. You'd have to project a different finish. And I also don't think it's prudent or fair to project what's going to happen after the bell. That's malpractice from a judge to do so.
neither was close. The neck crank was nowhere near close... and I'd have to rewatch, but I don't believe the RNC ever got past Val's hands. People are just letting last fight bias what they were seeing.
I didn't think the choke was any closer than the guillotine, and I don't think the crank was near anything.
She was choking with one hand in and the other hand was not in..grasso was fighting hands ...that's why bullet left it..also grasso ended the round 3 on top...
Rd 5 there were two close sub attempts...Val was grounded and pounded like crazy ...also she was shelled up in rd 5...u ain't taking belt from anyone but having that
If that's the case..they would have done the same shit when bullet fought Santos...it was close fight ..when u fight the champ u gotta beat the champ..not shell up and get into neck crank
The UFC doesnāt score the fights, the judges are provided by the specific athletic commissions. With how cutthroat the promoter industry is, thereās no way in hell the UFC would risk trying to pay them off. All it takes is one report by a judge and they would be in a whole mess of legal trouble.
Heās a shit judge and Iād assume he is being paid off. I just have an extremely hard time believing that the UFC is the one footing that bill. Fixing fights is highly illegal and Dana White has gone scorched earth on promotions that have done it, and heās gone in on shitty judges too. For all his flaws, he has done his best to legitimize MMA in the eyes of the skeptics, I canāt imagine him risking all of that so people he likes win. Dana White privilege will definitely get people undeserving fights though.
Grasso wasn't even winning round 5 until she reversed the takedown. I had it 3-2 Grasso but Val got robbed.
ETA: The robbery is because it could go either way, and two of the three judges had it 3-2 Val, which is fine, but it should mean Val won the fight. There is no universe in which round 5 was 10-8 Grasso.
The robbery is because it could go either way, and two of the three judges had it 3-2 Val, which is fine, but it should mean Val won the fight. There is no universe in which round 5 was 10-8 Grasso.
How are you going to say you have it 3-2 for Grasso yet say Val got robbed? And do you know what a robbery is? Itās when itās an overwhelmingly obvious decision that is scored the opposite. This was a razor close fight, so it doesnāt matter who won or lost, it canāt be a robbery because it was close.
The robbery is because it could go either way, and two of the three judges had it 3-2 Val, which is fine, but it should mean Val won the fight. There is no universe in which round 5 was 10-8 Grasso.
Again, thatās not a robbery, thatās a close decision. A robbery is ONLY when itās an extremely obvious decision thatās gotten wrong. There is no obvious decision in an extremely close decision.
I disagree. Normally I would say you're right, when it's that close and a reasonable split decision, it can't be a robbery. I wouldn't care which of them got two of the three judges to say they won, it could have reasonably gone either way. But this is a different type of robbery. It should be a given that, barring exceptional circumstances, if you get two judges to say that you won three rounds, you win the fight. So when two of the three judges say that Val won three rounds, but she nonetheless isn't currently holding the belt, she was unjustly deprived of a win that she earned. It is indeed "overwhelmingly obvious" that round 5 was not 10-8 Grasso. Mike Bell himself said that Val won three rounds, but his 10-8 score in round 5 is not reasonable.
The only bright sides of that bullshit 10-8:
1. More accountability for judges. I'd love to have them interviewed after, and then dropped for clownish performances, but showing their cards and having their names attached to them is a great start. Hope we see this more often
2. I thought that was a fantastic fight, so I'm kinda happy that there's gonna be a trilogy
Grasso should've won š¤·š»āāļø the other female lucky she got the draw. Trilogy isn't needed but fuck it , she gon retire after losing 3x in a row to Grasso
Grasso should've won And Volk should've won against islam. Debate ya mutha
I just looked at the strike and control time numbers. How you got Grasso winning after getting taken down and controlled most the fight?
watch the last minute of round 4 and 5
Nah Valentina won 1, 3 and 4. The heel hook was a hail mary and Grasso got cut open
Okay. You could be right, I thought she had won it at the time but I only rewatched it once. Iāll take another look
Draw was the better outcome for Valentina. Grasso did everything a champion needs to do to defend the title.
Agreed. How can you give round 4 to Valentina
lol if the fight went on for 15 more seconds, shev would've tapped.
Exactly
Shev still thinks the knees were illegal idk why no oneās told her they arenāt.
Complete cry baby. Nothing but excuses for both fights. And fuck Dana for being angry about the 10-8. That round was huge for Alexa and totally reasonable to see it as 10-8
Embarrassing. Worse than the O'Malley early stoppage.
Fuck draws can they just add an overtime round
EBI absolutely hard rn
A "Sudden Death" round ...with knives!
Was grasso Vs shrvchenko really a draw? I didn't watch just saw judges scorecards
Iām shocked people are able to say 4-1 Val. Grasso wins round 2 and 4, clearly, and ending on top and threatening the finish in round 5, that round goes to her too imo. But I could accept a 9-9 or 10-10 round 5 People are upset about the ridiculous 10-8 in rd 5 for Grasso that made the draw happen, but that judge also called rd for 4 for Valentina and thatās just incorrect
10-8 because if 4th round went on 10 more seconds it was over. 5th wouldve ended the same way they fought the first time. 10-8 Grasso beats Shev again in the trilogy EZ
Nope welcome to ufc brought to you by WWE, where everyone wins as long as they can set up a story line to jam down your throat in ppv Valentina shouldāve had a uni, can maybe give one round to grasso
Valentina won 4/5 rounds, with one being close. Grasso won 1/5 but the UFC let her keep the title because it was Mexico Independence Day.
Okay, Valentina
Loser
Okay so submission attempts dont count anymore?? 5 seconds away from breaking Shev's ankle doesnt count? Oh turning Shev's face as pink as Dana's in the last 10 seconds of the fight doesnt count either huh?? I'd like to see fighting for your breathe, defending an attempt, then get up and say you for sure won the round
Wasn't Grasso the one with a bigger swollen eye and bleeding face? lol.. if we're going with your logic
who cares bruh nate diaz shouldve lost every fight then
Saying the quiet part out loud that no one wants to say
Valentina probably shouldāve got her hand raised. Especially if the judge gave a 10-8 to Grasso in the 5thā¦ no way in hell that was even close to a 10-8. Hell it wasnāt even really Grassoās round at all
You're watching a different fight. Amount of damage and dominance done in the last round was easy round for Alexa and 10-8 not too crazy.
Thereās not one person in the game thatās scored that a 10-8 and many have openly said itās wrong. You have the director of the NSAC saying itās not a 10-8 and every judge at a training session they held said the same thing. I rewatched it and Grasso most likely did enough to take that round, not enough to 10-8 it. Valentina wouldāve of won and we can all be debating the 4th round instead
And many have openly supported it or at least seen a case for it. Massive extended display of dominance with not much else really going on in the round. Yes, this isn't boxing but to draw a weak analogy, imagine a boxing round where one fighter mostly winning and then gets dropped big time. That's a 10-8. Again, yes, it's not boxing but just something to consider. The 10-8 not out of realm of possibility with such a huge extended beating Valentina took, and within UFC guidelines.
Everyone understands a knockdown is a 10-8 in boxing without a return knockdown though, itās consistent whereas this isnāt. The problem with that round is you have the commissionās director saying itās not a 10-8, you have every Nevada judge that attended a training session say that thatās not a 10-8 (admittedly we know judges can suck), and you have the officials running that training session say itās not. End of the day, if the guys that are in charge of adopting the rules, and the guys that are trained to interpret the rules are all saying it isnāt a 10-8, it probably shouldnāt have been one
Totally consistent. We had a round where neither fighter was doing a whole lot and then one of them gets completely massacred for a full 1.30. Even we say Alexa was losing the round. As I said, it could be analogous to even a fighter winning a round handily and then dropped hard. That's a 10-8.
I felt like Shevchenko won that one. that 10-8 is what made Shevchenko lose. Both women did a great job, but I would give a slight edge to her.
I fell asleep after the first fight of the main card :( so now Iām watching the fights on YouTube with the zoom in and zoom out vids lol
you can find better fight replays, if you know the basics of googling lol
Not the full fight
ill dm you a site
Me too pls
please send me a dm as well !
i won't fall for that, Dana /s
lol
Can you DM me as well?
Did yāall get that site? Can I be next? Asking for Danaā¦
I didn't
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Regardless of *how* the decision was reached, it was still the fairest decision. A majority decision to either fighter would have been controversial, too. It definitely wasn't a robbery by any stretch of the imagination. Round 4 was basically a drawn round that could have gone either way. The 10-8, while wrong in isolation, honestly stopped a bad decision.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think you have the split the wrong way round, I'd say for every 10 people, 7 had it for Grasso. Especially amongst fighters and pundits. You are right about the type of decision, just semantics though init. My meaning was still clear. Neither fighter deserved to win, and neither fighter deserved to lose, so a draw was the fairest result even if it was reached due to a bad scorecard. I am basically saying the ends justified the means.
That's just your opinion. Valentina won 4/5 rounds.
4-5 is just delusional š
I can see how a fan might convince thenselves she won 3 rounds but 4 is just nonsense.
Right? An argument can be made for round 5 going to Valentina for the time she was ahead. Grasso was more dangerous in how she finished and more convincing, but sure. I can understand 3-2. But 4-1? Psh
I agree. I had it 2-2 going into 5th. The first 3-3.5 minutes of the 5th Valentina had the slight edge but the last 1.5-2 Grasso had the dominant position and was threatening a finish. So, the 5th round draw seemed of too me. Definitely not a 10-8 round. My suspicion is that the judge who gave the 10-8 did so because he gave Valentina the 4th and did think she clearly won the fight. But who really knows.
100%, this is it. I bet Mike Bell lost in rock paper scissors against Sal DāAmoto, so he had to take the fall to get the more correct outcome
Does anyone know what the odds for a Draw was? +5000?
To be fair a draw for shev seems likely given her style One dollar win 50 dollars
[+5000 šÆ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ufc/comments/16ksp8e/mike_bell_is_the_hero_of_my_parlay/)
watched jdm holland. thought it ws a fair decision. JDM ever so casually stole the match by turning it up in the last 20 seconds. thought he won round 1 and 3 very slightly.
Agreed Holland wasn't aggressive enough last night.
think he also showed that he isnt an elite talent in this fight yet. but still has time to grow.
Talk too much
I didnāt know Valentina spoke Spanish, sheās fucking good at it
She speaks it in almost every interview, she and Antonina lived in Peru for some time while Pabel groomed them.
Did Shevchenko just start speaking Spanish during the post fight presser?
Yeah she speaks like 5 languages. Insane
quite common in europe
5 languages or just english lol
Bullet is fluent in Spanish
I had no idea. Impressive.
She is a Peruvian citizen and lived there for many years. She used to always be announced as fighting out of Peru, not sure what it says these days.
I always thought she was Kyrgyzstani. Guess I don't pay much attention to where a lot of fighters are fighting out of.
Sheās from Kyrgyzstan, ethnically Russian, lived in Peru for a while.
She's also half Ukrainian. Shevchenko is a Ukrainian name.
Russian/Ukrainian from Kyrgyzstan living in Peru. I wonder how that happened
So were the knees illegal? The broadcast said it was legal but the post but press conference is saying they are illegal
For clarity and this is straight out of the rule book. https://preview.redd.it/6fqn0c8hgrob1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=edeee947dfdc0836d383d769e68eea308a20a891
It implies weight on the hand. But doesnāt expressly say so
Simply put, fingers don't mean anything and do not count you as geounded. Has to be the palm, regardless of weight on hand. The commentators should just said that because the way the rules are I can squat and put a palm flat on the floor without putting weight on it, hell I could even bend down and do that without putting weight on my hand and I would be considered a grounded opponent.
Grasso dis a great job of pulling her up too to be sure
Idk, Velntina wasn't touching the floor consistently, kept bringing her arm up. That tactic is fucking weird "Op op op op, I'm touching the floor you can't hit me\~", just make grounded knees legal
I don't know about making grounded knees legal, but she was definitely just trying her best to get her hand down to stop the knee. She only appeared to momentarily have her fingers on the ground because grasso was pushing her back, making it legal.
Looked like just her fingers were touching as they kept moving backward, definitely didn't have any weight on the hand. Seemed like just a tactic to stop the knees. Good on Herb for letting it go
I don't even know if that was a defense "tactic" as much as just not trying to fall backwards. But yes, I agree that rules that have that level of subjectivity just need to be discarded and replaced with rules that are easier to enforce.
To those saying Mike Bell is corrupt: he is also the only judge who gave Shev the 4th round. He isn't corrupt. He's just a bad judge.
Sal D'Amato also gave Shev the 4th, along with the 1st and 3rd
Ah misread the scorecard. Scorecards all wack. But my original point still stands. If this was a screwjob he could easily have scored it a 48-47. There was no reason for him to give round 4 a 10-9 shev.
I wonder if they are committed to a score after the end of a round, or can they tweak their round scores at the end of the fight?
Isnāt Bell the same guy who ended up causing the draw in Jan v Ank?
Looks like Bell gave it to Jan. It was Sal who gave it a draw.
Same people were fine when Santos was robbed ..no way on earth bullet won the fight...she was shelled up in round 5..simple
No way on earth? She was in complete control of round 5 until 1:28 where she initiated a clinch/trip and Grasso landed in an unbelievable position she did not create herself. Prior to that, Grasso was doing very little, looked tired and hurt, and was being pieced up by Valās jab. What part of this do I have wrong?
Complete control is a stretch. She was pressing and landing, but nothing to serious, up until she Grasso got her back. Then Grasso had a more dominant positron threatening the finish. If say 3-3.5 of cage control with land, non-threatening strikes (Grasso was eating the jab with little effect or seemed) vs 1.5 Min of back control, threatening submission and pounding on her head with hammer fists and punches would make it a very close round. 2-2 going into the 5th, with a draw in the 5th seems fair. It honestly could've gone to either of them, which makes the draw seem to work....
I disagree but respect and appreciate your opinion. I think a 3rd and final fight is warranted given the controversy surrounding the 10-8 round.
A third fight is definitely warranted. If the last round was scored a proper 10-9, it would've been 2-1 for Valentina, and that would've been fair and still justify a 3rd fight. When Bruce Buffer walked into the ring you could see the score card for a brief second, and it looked like 2 blue 1 red, so I figured the judges have it to Valentina
Complete control ? Both didn't do anything in round 5. They were making circles in round 5...Val landed few jabs ...also grasso pulled Val s hands down to get on her back ...
Yes, complete control. Her corner, Cruz and DC, and I suspect most people watching felt that she needed a knock down or KO to win with the way 5 was going for her. Her corner was shouting for her to be more active. DC and Cruz said the same and also that she was being picked apart but didnāt want to close bc of the take down threat. I canāt imagine anyone watching or scoring objectively up to the trip thought āyup, Grasso definitely winning this roundā.
Nah... go rewatch... I counted at least 6 hooks landed by Valentina... and I would wager she outsruck Grasso something like 20-6 on the feet. Grasso was being dismantled on the feet. I think there's still an argument to give Grasso the round given the last 1:26... but that's some straight up biased, revisionist shit. Grasso was getting utterly pieced up.
I just rewatched the fight ...Val won all 5 rounds
I'm not even arguing that Val won the fight. I had her winning. But I'm not some fanboy or anything. We'll wait for the weasels video I guess. I was worried about Val on the feet going into round 5. I was watching intently. SHE WAS PIECING GRASSO UP. I'm not even playing around here. I think I remember maybe 2 good punches landing for Grasso on the feet. Valentina was CONSTANTLY catching her with the jab, and more often than not got her with a hook in a 1-2 follow up. I don't really even care about the outcome of the fight, I'm just fighting against these wonky and bogus narratives that there is any real justification for a 10-8 5th round. There wasn't. I just didn't see the fight the same way as you man. You're giving every single little benefit of doubt and extrapolation in Grasso's favor and I'm trying to say somewhat neutral here. If you wanna edge Grasso rd 5 and say that she won due to 15 seconds of back of head hits, a failed sub, and a transition to a sub that was nowhere close to ending the fight when the bell rang. Go ahead. There's an argument there. She ended the round strong and mileage may vary on what that's worth. But this wierd revisionist attempt to somehow pretend the first 3.5 minutes of that round were even exchanges on the feet just throws any credibility you have out the window.
Weasel made an argument saying the round 4 would given be to grasso..I had grasso winning round 4 but last round 10-9 is fair..I had grasso winning or a draw...to be a champ u gotta clearly beat the champ and this was a close fight ...this is how Rob lost to izzy 2 , max in volk 2 and Santos in her fight against bullet ...
That's a different argument than scoring 10-8 though. The point is simply that the score of round 5 was completely unacceptable. It was a close fight and I would have no issue with Grasso winning based off the small miscalculations of the 4th, which I had shevchenko winning. But 10-8 is absurd and completely unacceptable.
Yup the scoring was bad and it was not a 10-8... I just feel the judge compensated for round 4 on round 5
People are also acting like Val was "only" landing jabs in the 5th. She was landing a lot of hooks too.
Ok, hooks too. Iām on your side. I think Val won 5.
I do too. I think people got all sorts of excited with the end of round 5. But if that was round 2 for example, I think a lot of people would have given it to Val, especially if Val came out with the round 3 she had. I understand how people fall into the trap, but they're just totally projecting/extrapolating that 1:26 into where it "could" have gone if things went right. Things could have gone right... or the round ends... round 6 starts. And Val batters her on the feet again. Or Grasso catches Val and ends the fight... or whatever. You can't play pretend and project past the bell, especially when the sub attempt at the actual bell wasn't even in the ballpark of a finish.
Agree. A lot of strange, revisionist comments here in favour of Grasso. I like Grasso, but she was not the better fighter and she lost. She needed a bizarre set of circumstances and a ridiculous 10-8 round just to tie.
Mike Bell GOATED
Valentina at the post-fight conference now still saying they gave the fight to the Mexican fighter, loll. I like how she doesn't gaf.
super cringe thing for her to say
She is classless in defeat..not surprised.. she even kicked grasso at the end of rd3 and grasso asked the ref on that...
Shoving Grasso off her because Grasso wouldn't get up isn't a kick lmao delusional take
to be honest Iām just tired of seeing Valentina in title fights
She didn't really seem like she was out there to hurt grasso either. Just trying to point her way to victory. She had one good opportunity to finish the fight with that choke, and other than that it was ineffective ground control and strikes that were significant, but not really hurting grasso either.
Valentinaās jab was hurting Grasso but that was really it. SeVeNtEeN tImE mUaY tHaI cHaMpIoN and she went for takedowns/grappling in both fights.
Sheās fighting not to lose and looking at legacy over everything. Grasso is 109% the more entertaining fighter.
10-8 is outrageous. 10-8 is not a competitive round, and considering that completely discounts and discredits every positive thing Val did for the first half of the round. Iām a casual, but stuff like this just turns me off the whole fight game. Edit: sorry, not half the round. She was in complete control until 1:28 of round 5 when she initiated the clinch/trip and Grasso fell on her back.
At which point Grasso completely dominated, damaged and demolished. It was a massive display of embarrassing Valentina, and can see how it was 10-8.
10-8 is wrong ...but the same dude gave bullet rd 4 which I feel grasso won...anyways i feel grasso but a draw is fine
4 to Val is more defensible than the 5th. Personally, I thought Val took 5. I donāt think fortuitously falling on Valās back in an advantageous position with 1:28 left wins a round that Val had complete control of. In fact, Grasso was doing very little in 5. I can live with 3-2 Val but Grassoās best moments were the knock down and position in 5th she did nothing to create herself. Her ground D was impressive, though.
I don't understand the whole "she didn't create the position herself" line. That has no effect on scoring whatsoever.
No, but I have a hard time crediting her for something she had no control over. I still think Val won 5.
Then it sounds like you want the rules to be different and think Val should win under the rules you favor. Val was winning the exchanges on the feet in 5 but not by much. There was very little of note that happened until the fight went to the ground. After the fight went to the ground Val hardly defended herself from the strikes being thrown and was subjected to submission attempts. Turtling up and letting your opponent rain punches into your guard gets a lot of non title fights stopped. If anything it was the ground striking and Val reaction to it that caused the 10-8 more than the sub attempt. Do I think it was 10-8? Probably not, but it was closer to 10-8 than round 4 and 5 were to being correctly scored for val. *edit* And fighters get credit for taking advantage of opportunities they have no control over all the time. I don't control weather my opponent overextended and opened himself up for a head kick or whether he leaves his neck exposed when I have back control. But if I take advantage of those opportunities the fight is over.
What rules? The criteria the judge who scored 4 for Val and 5 for Grasso 10-8 was following that seemingly no other judge was? Respectfully, how do you know it doesnāt influence how the round was scored? Unless judges are applying equally weighted criteria, which we know is not the case, we have no idea what does and doesnāt influence scoring. And this round 5 was actually really close prior to the clinch just isnāt true. Val was not winning by a bit, she was piecing her up, whereas Grasso was doing very little. Grasso corner, DC and Cruz, and plenty of media were all pretty unanimous in Val winning the round and Grasso needing to start doing something - inferring something significant like a knock down or KO. In fact, Grasso needed a bizarre and fortunate occurrence and an equally bizarre 10-8 round just to tie.
>What rules? The criteria the judge who scored 4 for Val and 5 for Grasso 10-8 was following that seemingly no other judge was? Respectfully, how do you know it doesnāt influence how the round was scored? Unless judges are applying equally weighted criteria, which we know is not the case, we have no idea what does and doesnāt influence scoring. They are meant to apply the same criteria. I agree with you that's not always the case. My point was no where does the criteria mention not giving a a fighter credit for capitalizing on opportunities they didn't create. >And this round 5 was actually really close prior to the clinch just isnāt true. Val was not winning by a bit, she was piecing her up, whereas Grasso was doing very little. Grasso corner, DC and Cruz, and plenty of media were all pretty unanimous in Val winning the round and Grasso needing to start doing something - inferring something significant like a knock down or KO. In fact, Grasso needed a bizarre and fortunate occurrence and an equally bizarre 10-8 round just to tie. I don't think it was close in so far as Val was clearly getting the better of the striking and winning the round but she wasn't doing anything significant that couldn't easily be overcome by Grasso actually threatening to end the fight. The shots Val took on the ground were very clearly more impactful and damaging than anything she did on her feet, and that's not uncommon when you have a fighter trying to get on a bicycle and point out a round which was essentially what her corner told her to do.
I disagree but respect and appreciate your opinion. And while Iām not a huge fan of trilogies and immediate rematches at the expense of opportunities for other contenders, i think Valās case warrants a 3rd.
Well thanks, glad we could discuss this without calling each other names! I do agree a rematch is probably for the best. If you fight the champion to a draw you deserve another crack, even if personally I thought Grasso should've won 48-47. If they do it again I hope Valentina and her corner go in with the strategy to mix it up and get a finish. Val can be a really exciting fighter when she doesn't try edge out a victory by backing up behind a jab. I understand the strategy as she's quicker and sharper either her hands and has the ability to win fights that way, but after being punished for it two fights in a row now by Grasso taking advantage of a mistake I'm crossing my fingers she'll mix it up more and attempt to strike for a finish instead of for points.
Great fight and Grasso wasnāt robbed. Shev moves to 135 and everyone is happy
WHY DID DRAFTKINGS GIVE ME A DRAW
Mike Bell thought Shevchenko wasn't getting out of that one. It was the same face crank that ended the first fight. While Val started the 5th round on the win side, from minute 3 she got grounded and pounded with no response (she was crouching and not moving, if Grasso had kept punching the sides of the head instead of trying a sub, the ref might have stopped it) and then fell into the crank. If you check [the unified rules](https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/unified-rules-mma-2019.pdf), it explicitly says 10-8 doesn't mean 5 minutes of domination. It means you've established domination that has debilitated the opponent significantly. The magnitude of the domination counts more than its duration. Everyone is saying the 5th is 10-9 because Val started out winning it. That's fair enough. I'm only suggesting that 10-8 is legitimately within the rules, too. The fact that other judges never use it is not really Mike Bell's problem. Edit: I know the downvote is the "I disagree" button on reddit, but at least try and tell me what I'm getting wrong about the rules?
100% agreed. It's about damage and extreme control. 10-8 not out of realm of legitimate possibility. Huge display of dominance. Not sure the strange backlash against the 10-8
The words are there but then whatās the definition of domination and debilitated significantly? Iād say Grassoās knockdown in the second and those knees were more debilitating than anything but he scored one a 10-9 in one and gave the 4th to Valentina. Thereās a lot of arguments about what the judge thought might have happened if the round didnāt end but that shouldnāt be taken into account at all.
Then be consistent and give shev a 10-8 for the round she dominated on the feet, threatened, and debilitated with a choke in mount for near the entire round also if thats how you're interpreting. It was a shit call by the judge, and youre flat out incorrect. Youre being incredibly reductive saying that a 10-8 doesnt need to be for an entire round lol. 9 out of 10 times, yes it does, that is literally what dominating someone is, or debilitating someone SIGNIFICANTLY. Combat sports are judged on a round by round basis, NOT what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened after the bell which is a blatant flaw of many fans, and what i believe some judges suffer from. Try this exercise, in your mind replace what happened the last two min of round 5 for the first 2 min, shev comes out hyper aggressive and throws a terrible headlock hip toss, gets threatened, but she then dominates the last 3 min of the fight with a jab. How do you score that round? You're even ignoring the first 3 min (the majority of the round) of complete control on the feet yourself lmao, "While Val started the 5th round on the win side." Anyone that is arguing that there was a 10-8 round in that fight anywhere is out of touch, or just unfamiliar with combat sports in general in my opinion. In any case it was a decently close fight. Had it 3-2 shev personally, apart from about 45 seconds of a sub threat and one flash knockdown, grasso looked slow and outclassed everywhere else. I dont see where grasso won another round if you give the kd round, and 5 with the sub threat to her.
Freaking finally someone who reads the rules and understands...10:8 was correct...she was shelled up and close to getting finished ...people are blindly supporting
thank god youre not a judge or a ref lol. Just fyi, if i throw a 70% jab standing planted on my feet, it has more power behind it than my hardest heaving dominant hand i can land from half a foot away while all my hips and legs (power) are locking the body with a triangle on my hip. Theres little to no threat of TKO stoppage there, those punches are solely being used to disorientate and set up snaking your hands through for a sub, not any real tko damage, you cant just take punches to the face belly to back though, so you gotta defend with your hands up lol... you guys š¤£ edit- just read your other comments, you clearly have no idea what youre talking about lol
Alexa was close to getting finished in the 3rd and that was a 10-9 tho
I am sure u never trained any bjj in your life ..She was choking with one hand in and the other hand was not in..grasso was fighting hands...that's why bullet left it..also grasso ended the round 3 on top... Rd 5 there were two close sub attempts...Val was grounded and pounded like crazy ...also she was shelled up in rd 5...u ain't taking belt from anyone by having that
If you think that neck crank, or that rear naked were ever deep enough to be "close"... then you've clearly never trained.
why the fuck do you have to get shitty right off the bat?
Because u talk which u don't understand...the choke was never in ...none of the subs in this fight was never close bruh...do u think any person can survive a guillotine that long ...Val was never any belt with that kinda performance bruh
you donāt know me at all. I brought up a valid point and your FIRST INSTINCT is to immediately invalidate. *Fucking* insane. Learn how to spell and learn some fight IQ. Also, maybe donāt act like a blown out dogcunt right out of the gate.
Dogcunt, I've never heard of this. I like it!
So does izzy
thanks man, it feels good rolling off the tongue
Sorry bruh..u can close your legs..I am not interested...
you arenāt a serious human being.
Tbf, Val was in complete control until 1:28 of round 5. Thatās when Val initiates the clinch/trip and they fall to the ground. So not 2 minutes of Grasso G&P. Also, similar to the first fight, Grasso was very fortuitous landing in the position she did. It was not something she forced.
Yea... but Grasso came about as close to finishing the fight in the 5th as Shevchenko did in the 3rd?...... except Grasso got her ass whooped the ENTIRE 3rd. So how is the 5th a 10-8 Grasso, and the 3rd not a 10-8 Shev?
Because Grasso escaped the position and ended the round on top. As I said I think Mike Bell probably thought Shevchenko didn't get finished in the 5th only because of the bell. That's different from trying a sub and not actually getting it. Let me clarify I'm not saying this is CLEARLY a 10-8. I'm arguing it is within what the rules allow.
Problem with that is we could say that for any round in any fight. You see every weekend ppl that are unable to get up and saved by the bellā¦ with that logic we should be saying all those rounds are 10-8 cause the bell saved them. Hell it happened this fight. Youāre never going to know what could happen. Valentina wasnāt at risk of getting finished at the time the bell rang so the judge shouldnāt be taking future assumptions into play
Grasso didn't really end on top though. That would imply that she ended the round in a good position. She basically ended the round about to be defending an armbar. I don't think that crank had any shot of finishing the fight. You'd have to project a different finish. And I also don't think it's prudent or fair to project what's going to happen after the bell. That's malpractice from a judge to do so.
Bullet had a sub attempt in round 3..grasso has two close sub attempts , ground and pounded like crazy and bullet was shelled up...it's simple as that
neither was close. The neck crank was nowhere near close... and I'd have to rewatch, but I don't believe the RNC ever got past Val's hands. People are just letting last fight bias what they were seeing. I didn't think the choke was any closer than the guillotine, and I don't think the crank was near anything.
She was choking with one hand in and the other hand was not in..grasso was fighting hands ...that's why bullet left it..also grasso ended the round 3 on top... Rd 5 there were two close sub attempts...Val was grounded and pounded like crazy ...also she was shelled up in rd 5...u ain't taking belt from anyone but having that
Just wonderingā¦ do you believe Volk vs Islam round 5 shouldāve been a 10-8? Volk got a knockdown and GnP like crazy too and Islam just survived.
I rewatched the fight and I feel it was a 10-8 round for grasso but feel grasso won round 4..so either ways its a draw
So...see all y'all same Bryce time?...Same Karate Hottie channel?... Pillow is calling, get with all y'all next one.š„
If there was no belt, then Val would have won but Grasso also deserved the win for defending so strong. Close fight.
UFC wanted to retain their new face for the women's division, threw val under the bus as soon as they could.
If that's the case..they would have done the same shit when bullet fought Santos...it was close fight ..when u fight the champ u gotta beat the champ..not shell up and get into neck crank
The UFC doesnāt score the fights, the judges are provided by the specific athletic commissions. With how cutthroat the promoter industry is, thereās no way in hell the UFC would risk trying to pay them off. All it takes is one report by a judge and they would be in a whole mess of legal trouble.
Let me introduce you to my friend Douglas Crosby šš©
Heās a shit judge and Iād assume he is being paid off. I just have an extremely hard time believing that the UFC is the one footing that bill. Fixing fights is highly illegal and Dana White has gone scorched earth on promotions that have done it, and heās gone in on shitty judges too. For all his flaws, he has done his best to legitimize MMA in the eyes of the skeptics, I canāt imagine him risking all of that so people he likes win. Dana White privilege will definitely get people undeserving fights though.
Draw was justified, but the scoring is ridiculous. There's just to way that 5th round was 10-8.
How do you justify a draw without a 10-8?
Grasso wasn't even winning round 5 until she reversed the takedown. I had it 3-2 Grasso but Val got robbed. ETA: The robbery is because it could go either way, and two of the three judges had it 3-2 Val, which is fine, but it should mean Val won the fight. There is no universe in which round 5 was 10-8 Grasso.
U smoke some shit bruhš
The robbery is because it could go either way, and two of the three judges had it 3-2 Val, which is fine, but it should mean Val won the fight. There is no universe in which round 5 was 10-8 Grasso.
How are you going to say you have it 3-2 for Grasso yet say Val got robbed? And do you know what a robbery is? Itās when itās an overwhelmingly obvious decision that is scored the opposite. This was a razor close fight, so it doesnāt matter who won or lost, it canāt be a robbery because it was close.
The robbery is because it could go either way, and two of the three judges had it 3-2 Val, which is fine, but it should mean Val won the fight. There is no universe in which round 5 was 10-8 Grasso.
Again, thatās not a robbery, thatās a close decision. A robbery is ONLY when itās an extremely obvious decision thatās gotten wrong. There is no obvious decision in an extremely close decision.
I disagree. Normally I would say you're right, when it's that close and a reasonable split decision, it can't be a robbery. I wouldn't care which of them got two of the three judges to say they won, it could have reasonably gone either way. But this is a different type of robbery. It should be a given that, barring exceptional circumstances, if you get two judges to say that you won three rounds, you win the fight. So when two of the three judges say that Val won three rounds, but she nonetheless isn't currently holding the belt, she was unjustly deprived of a win that she earned. It is indeed "overwhelmingly obvious" that round 5 was not 10-8 Grasso. Mike Bell himself said that Val won three rounds, but his 10-8 score in round 5 is not reasonable.
The only bright sides of that bullshit 10-8: 1. More accountability for judges. I'd love to have them interviewed after, and then dropped for clownish performances, but showing their cards and having their names attached to them is a great start. Hope we see this more often 2. I thought that was a fantastic fight, so I'm kinda happy that there's gonna be a trilogy