Most people dont know how to score a fight.

[Bryn]

I wouldn't ever score a 9-9, I take away point deductions from the final tally.

[TBooze]

Judges are there to judge, not sit on the fence. If two fighters mirror each other move for move for three minutes, there is an argument for an even round. But even then the judge should score it for the champ, and in a non title fight, the house fighter.

[WalletInspector]

Originally Posted by TBooze

Judges are there to judge, not sit on the fence. If two fighters mirror each other move for move for three minutes, there is an argument for an even round. But even then the judge should score it for the champ, and in a non title fight, the house fighter.

That's bollocks. The champion isn't wearing the belt in the ring, once the first bell goes it's a 50/50 fight with the only advantage being that the champion keeps the belt in the event of a draw. There's no such thing as "having to take the belt from the champion."

[DrMo]

If a fighter does something really incredible I might score the round 11-9

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by WalletInspector

That's bollocks. The champion isn't wearing the belt in the ring, once the first bell goes it's a 50/50 fight with the only advantage being that the champion keeps the belt in the event of a draw. There's no such thing as "having to take the belt from the champion."

Yes there is, it is what made the sport great, and in part why it is so poor now a days. Champions should only lose their crown if they are comprehensively outpointed or stopped.

By doing so it adds value to the title, and fires up the challenger to put proper effort in.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by TBooze

Judges are there to judge, not sit on the fence. If two fighters mirror each other move for move for three minutes, there is an argument for an even round. But even then the judge should score it for the champ, and in a non title fight, the house fighter.

What the fuck? Is this ironic?

As soon as two fighters are in the ring and the round begins, they are both fighting for the belt - it effectively becomes vacant pending the outcome of the fight. The champion receives no special consideration.

If a judge believes a round is even, he should score it as such.

Yes there is, it is what made the sport great, and in part why it is so poor now a days. Champions should only lose their crown if they are comprehensively outpointed or stopped.

By doing so it adds value to the title, and fires up the challenger to put proper effort in.

Oh you're one of those "You need to TAKE the belt from the champion" types. Well, all you need to do is win seven rounds (or a points equivalent). Mong twat is appropriate here.

[antcull]

I love threads like these.

[KingCobra]

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

If a judge believes a round is even, he should score it as such.

If a judge believes a round is even, he is not doing his job. Every round there has ever been, has one boxer who deserved it over the other, even if it comes down to a flinch from a feint.

Judges should do what it says on the bottle, judge, not sit on the fence, anyone can do that, even me!

[icemax]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

It amazes me how many people give 9-9 rounds.

Or claim that if you have 13 round fights there would never be a draw

[icemax]

Originally Posted by TBooze

Yes there is, it is what made the sport great, and in part why it is so poor now a days. Champions should only lose their crown if they are comprehensively outpointed or stopped.

By doing so it adds value to the title, and fires up the challenger to put proper effort in.

I'm a bit old school and believe that titles should only change hands when the champion is stopped...having said that I believe in same day weigh ins, smaller gloves and 20 round championship fights.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

Mong twat is appropriate here.

I see what are doing... be careful Gervais will have you for plagiarism...

If you want to insult and/or offend, may I recommend originality? I was using that term 30 years ago, when I was seven, and it was not particularly clever then.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by TBooze

If a judge believes a round is even, he is not doing his job. Every round there has ever been, has one boxer who deserved it over the other, even if it comes down to a flinch from a feint.

Judges should do what it says on the bottle, judge, not sit on the fence, anyone can do that, even me!

Then you end up with what happened in Martinez-Williams I. One guy gave all the close rounds to Williams on volume and ignored the better quality from Martinez. A couple of those rounds could have been even.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by TBooze

I see what are doing... be careful Gervais will have you for plagiarism...

If you want to insult and/or offend, may I recommend originality? I was using that term 30 years ago, when I was seven, and it was not particularly clever then.

Actually I was referencing FleaMan's earlier post. Never watched much Gervais outside of The Office and Extras. He's not especially funny outside of those shows.

I'm not trying to insult or offend, merely point out you're talking shit.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by icemax

I'm a bit old school and believe that titles should only change hands when the champion is stopped...having said that I believe in same day weigh ins, smaller gloves and 20 round championship fights.

Fair dues. I think the first part is a bit extreeme and would of robbed us of the 'Slapsie Maxies'. I like the new weigh in rules, something to make the sport a bit safer. Smaller Gloves could also help with safety and I would love 15 round World Championship fight backs. Actually I would like World Championship fights back, even if they are ten rounders.

But kudos my fellow boxing fancy.