Why don't we see more rounds scored even?

I very rarely see 10-10 rounds these days. It used to be common to see them.

I don't get this whole thing that somebody has to win the round 10-9. Its just overplayed. I believe that to win the round a fighter should "win" the round. He has to do something to deserve the round. And not eek out a round. Especially when both fighters are very passive and nobody is doing anything. That's a 10-10 to me.

And I want to see more 10-8 rounds without any knockdowns. I see too many rounds where one fighter is being beaten from pillar to post. Gets stunned multiple times and goes full defensive mode all in one round, but doesn't hit the canvas. I'd like to see more 10-8 rounds in those instances.

 

That's actually a good valid argument. I think the judges decided that a round can no longer be even. Klitschko vs Fury would have been super close because that was a slow paced fight.

 

Disagree over 10-10 rounds, although I understand where you're coming from. I just think it would result in way too many draws and would give judges a cop-out in making a decision.

Totally agree re: 10-8 rounds. I mean what is more impressive, beating a guy from pillar to post for three minutes or a guy being floored by a light punch while off balance?

 

This is my point. I'm sick of people defaulting rounds which could have gone either way. It's part of the reason we have so many **** scorecards these days. If a guy doesn't convincingly win a round, than he doesn't get it.

 

Nope . I dont believe in 10-10 rnds.

 

its almost impossible to do, usually there is atleast one man landing more than the other. unless exactly 0 punches are thrown during the round.

 

I really don't care how many rounds a guy scores even as long as he has the right guy ahead at the end

 

There's more than counting punches. It's about making the impression you won the round.

 

I would give this 10,000 likes if I could. Also, I find it ridiculous that judges don't actually have to score the ACTUAL criteria that make a boxing score. Effective aggression, etc. They are supposed to score a fight based on these criteria, but don't have to validate it? WTF kind of bs is that? Based on that and the points you made it's no wonder there are so many terrible scorecards.

 

Remember what criteria is used to judge a fight... it's not just punches thrown.

 

I agree that if a round is truly even it should be scored 10-10. The problem is that it is too easy to score close rounds 10-10 when a more careful eye could identify a decisive winner. This could be a prescription for lazy judging if employed inappropriately, imo.

As far as 10-8 rounds with no knockdowns go, a guy really needs to beat his opponent pillar to post. I mean, it's got to be a real beat down. Because, once again, there is an opening for poor judging here should a judge see one guy hurt for most of a round and consider it 10-8 when it isn't the kind of brutal dominance that actually should constitute a 10-8.

 

Fury won 11 rounds

 

Willie is that you in the avatar?

 

This isn't the amatuers though. Scoring rounds on the basis of who lands more isn't appropriate.

 

You don't think that if a guy spends virtually the entire round stunned or badly hurt that it doesn't warrant a 10-8? The name of the game is pain, right?