How did you score the 3rd round ? 10-8, 9-8, 9-7 ? 10-9 ? Brian Kenny seemed to have no idea how to score that round. He kept bringing it up in rounds 4 and 5 asking how the 3rd round should be scored lol. I think I would score it 9-7 Ruiz. So anotherwords the whole of the round 10-9 Ruiz (based on in large part how impressive and emphatic the knockdowns he scored were, and the amount of clean eyecatching well placed shots he landed on AJ that round were some of those which led to the knockdowns) then you deduct the points from each fighter for each knockdown. Many will say "the winner needs to have 10" I'm not trying to get into that argument, I'm mainly concerned with if you had Ruiz winning the round by 1 or 2 points (whether it's 10-8 or 9-7 the margin is the same). If you only have Ruiz winning the round by 1 point then you're calling the whole of the round even and basically have it a 10-10 round then you just subtract points for the knockdowns. To me when you have multiple knockdowns the quality of the knockdowns themselves should be factored in to the straight up scoring of the whole of the round in addition to the additional point deducted from your opponent for each knockdown.
What is it that caused you to give it to Ruiz by 2 points instead of 1? Was it the quality of that 2nd knockdown, was it the punches he landed, or was it more what happened in the beginning of the round before the knockdowns?
Brian Kenny needs to learn the rules. it's called a "10 point Must system" meaning that somebody has to get 10 points. If AJ didn't knock down Ruiz, it would have been 10-7 round, but since he knocked him down once, it's 10-8.
It obviously has to be a 10-8 round by the rules of boxing, unless you thought that AJ won the round while being knocked down twice and almost stopped.
If I'm not mistaken I think Kenny did say he scored it 10-8 but he seemed unsure if that was correct, and kept asking if that was right.
Yeah I'm not trying to get into that argument again, it's been beat to death in a topic a few weeks ago. It's a 10 point must but in this case the winner of the round (Ruiz) was knocked down, and when you're knocked down you're supposed to lose a point. (if you end up with 10 you've never lost a point which is also against the so-called rules of boxing regarding knock downs) There's arguments for or against whether it should be 9-7 or 10-8. Regardless it seems that most agree that Ruiz won the round by 2 points and not 1.
As you say it doesn’t change anything. I was under the impression that the only way a winner of a round isn’t given 10 is if there is a penalty point taken away. Otherwise you could theoretically have rounds scored 6-6 and it would make it too complex to judge who got the better of the round. If that 10 is the constant for the winner with the gap as a result of knockdowns that’s far easier in the heat of the moment than constantly having to subtract while having to keep in mind previous knockdowns.
Yeah I don't have a problem with either scoring of it, and the official judges scored it 10-8, however the reason why I scored it 9-7 and the reason why I believe it's a superior way to score it is because I am more able to separate each knockdown point loss from the straight up scoring of the round. See what's happened is in most knockdown rounds, fans and judges alike have gotten into the habit of just letting the number of knockdowns scored 100% dictate the exact score of the round regardless what happened in the rest of the round, regardless of the quality of the knockdowns themselves. (i.e. 1 knockdown in a round is almost always scored a 10-8 round, etc) But then you get into : what if one fighter dominated the entire round then got caught and got knockdown him, like a flash no big deal knockdown right at the end of the round? Then what do you score it? See I would score it 9-9, you would have to score it 10-10 if you believe in the strict interpretation of the 10 point must. (but 10-10 doesn't really make sense mathmetically in a round when one guy got knocked down after dominating the rest of the round). Understand ? regardless of whether you score this round 10-8 or 9-7, you should be making some sort of a calculation regarding who won the whole of the round. And this is not to say the whole round outside of the knockdowns, that really should include the entire round including the knockdowns, then after that score is complete, then you apply the points lost from the knockdowns. So I'm not trying to say your way of scoring is wrong, I get the whole "the winner needs to have 10" all I'm saying is that mathematically it doesn't really work in multiple knockdown rounds. And through this rule of thumb that the winner always has to end up with 10, it's created a mindset that in effect has resulted in the knockdowns themselves completely dictating the exact score of the round., when it's easier to calculate and score the whole of the round and just deduct points for each knockdown after that. Like take this round 3, Lesion of Doom said he scored it 10-8, he didn't seem to make any calculation as to who won the whole of the round, he just scored it 10-8 solely because of the knockdowns, which is obviously what the judges did, and the reason for that is because it gets too complicated to score the round subjectively in any way, due to the fact that the math doesn't add up when you require the winner always gets 10.
Here's my question to you : what caused Ruiz to win the whole of the round in addition to having the spare KD? Was it the quality of the 2nd knockdown, was it his work rate early in the round. I'm trying to see what caused Ruiz to win the round by 2 points rather than only 1.
IMO the knockdown and the fact he absolutely dominated the final 60 seconds of the round were enough for the 10-8. If the two knockdowns happen close together and the boxer in Joshua's position comes back really strong you can argue 10-9. An example of this would be Round 12 Fury vs Wilder, but even then despite dominating the round IMO Fury didn't do enough to bring that back to a 10-9 round.