John McCarthy explains why Esparza vs. Namajunas warranted 10-10 round, breaks down UFC 274 snoozer

Almost one week later, it’s just about universally recognized that the UFC 274 co-main event between Rose Namajunas and Carla Esparza was boring and perhaps the worst championship fight in UFC history.

Esparza went on to win a split decision and reclaim the strawweight title from Namajunas by scores of 47-48, 49-46 and 48-47 after an uneventful 25 minutes in Phoenix. Round 1 set the tone and before it even finished, there was talk among announcers Joe Rogan, Daniel Cormier and Jon Anik on the ESPN+ broadcast, as well as from people on social, of a potential 10-10 score.

For a judge to score a round 10-10 is ultra-rare, largely because it’s discouraged by athletic commissions. But given what little action there was to go off of, Round 1 of Esparza vs. Namajunas at least warranted consideration. Ultimately not one judge – Eric Colon, Rick Winter or Brad Frank – scored it that way.

So if not for a round as lackluster as the first between Esparza and Namajunas, then when would be an appropriate time for a 10-10? Bellator analyst and former referee John McCarthy gave his thoughts in an interview with MMA Junkie Radio.

“There’s a couple things,” McCarthy said. “One is, you’ll have an instance where you have, let’s say, a three-round fight that enters the third round or a five-round fight that enters the fourth round, there’s been 10 to 15 seconds of fighting, and something occurs that draws a foul – unintentional we’ll say – and the fight ends up where it cannot be completed. Well, the judges have seen 10, 15, 20 seconds of fighting. How much has really happened? You’ve got to be very cautious in giving that (round to somebody). Someone would have had to have landed a shot that knocked the other person down for you to give that a 10-9 to one over the other.”

Clearly that scenario doesn’t apply to Esparza-Namajunas, but McCarthy wasn’t finished.

“You know what the other thing that would be a 10-10 round is?” he continued. “I always say the fights that are the worst, the ones where there’s not a whole lot happening, they’re not really going after each other, like we saw with Carla Esparza and Rose Namajunas, especially the first round – I was judging it, I didn’t have anybody there, it was me by myself, and I put down 10-10. That’s a 10-10 round. And it’s really based upon neither fighter deserved to win that round. When you’re talking about giving an advantage to one fighter over the other, they both hit each other, I would say, one to two times, if that. And neither of those were great. You don’t deserve to have an advantage over your opponent in that. If I was sitting in Arizona, the table would’ve gotten a 10-10, and I believe that’s the right score for that round.”

Should referee Keith Peterson have done more?

In the days since, Esparza and Namajunas have explained, to some degree, that they came in with game plans tailored to their respective wrestling and striking strengths – and neither fighter budged. That led to both women hesitating to engage.

Perhaps referee Keith Peterson played a part in the lackluster affair. Maybe if Peterson had issued warnings for “timidity,” the action would’ve picked up.

McCarthy isn’t so sure about that.

“It makes sense to the person, and it makes sense when you’re saying it,” McCarthy said. “But as the referee, I want you to answer the question: Which fighter were you gonna give a timidity (warning) to as far as taking a point? That’s the problem. Neither one is going after the other. Both of them are being very careful. It’s a matter of game planning and styles, and it just happens in fights. The audience wants the referee to be the difference maker and, ‘Hey, switch this around, and make this good because this is not what I paid for.’ And the problem is this. I tell people this all the time: A referee is never ever gonna make a bad fight good. Just can’t do it. … But I guarantee you that a referee can make a good fight bad, and that’s what you don’t wanna do, either.

“If you’re Keith Peterson, could he have issued a timidity warning to them? Yes. Could he have said, ‘Hey, I’m gonna take points away from both of you’? Yes. But what’s it really gonna do in the end? It’s not gonna change much of what they’re doing.”

‘It happens’

In the end, Esparza did enough to get the nod from the judges – even though Namajunas thought she won the fight.

The way McCarthy sees it, the fight turned out the way it did because of how Esparza and Namajunas matched up and how their corners advised them as the fight progressed.

“Listen to the corner of Rose Namajunas. Pat Barry and Trevor (Wittman), they’re telling her she’s winning. They’re telling her that she’s doing exactly what they want her to do, and so she’s gonna carry on as is,” McCarthy said. “Carla, her corner’s basically saying the same thing. ‘Just stick with what you’re doing.’ And that kind of leads to it, too. It’s not that the corners are doing anything wrong. It’s just that it’s the whole game coming together. …

“It just ends up being a bad fight. It happens.”