If a boxer completely dominates a round but suffers a KD, how should the round be scored?

You need to give examples really.

 

Knocking seven bells' and not knocking him down? ??? Heck, he deserves to lose the round simply because of this!!!!

 

Are you here to lobby a change of rules? Have you only just discovered boxing?

 

Lol. Wtf. Not good understanding. He means within the context of scoring the fight , not in the medical sense !!

 

I don't agree 10-8 should be fixed on one kd. A guy could be on his way to winning a round 10-8 just on dominance and take a late flash knock down to lose it 10-8, effectively a 4 point swing. Doesn't make sense.

 

OK then.
So what happens if a fighter is winning a round 10-9 and has point deducted for a foul?
How is that scored?
It isn't always ten points awarded, unless the referee has to score it 10-10 which means that the fighter who committed the foul hasn't had a point deducted.
In any case, I gave two ways in which I would score the second scenario; one was 10-9, the other was 9-8.

And the point you're making in your last sentence is completely irrelevant and also absolute nonsense.
I'm talking about the scoring of a round (in fact, that's what this ENTIRE THREAD is about) not the outcome of the fight itself.

 

By that logic, I'm presuming you would have given Randall (Tex) Cobb every one of the fifteen rounds against Larry Holmes and said the judges scorecards resulted in the biggest robbery in the history of the sport.

 

It's a discussion about whether the rules for scoring rounds is fair and I think that's a valid reason for debate.

 

I don't like the idea of a 10-9 round with a KD. Only in extremely exceptional cases. Like the round that Pac just obliterated DLH or Froch obliterated Groves. If Pac or Froch had been knocked down I think 10-9 would be the most reasonable and appropriate score. But unless it reaches that level of embarrassment and helplessness for the fighter who scored the KD it's a 10-8.

There is something to be said for dropping your opponent. You put them on there knees, ass, back, etc. whatever it's a striking combat sport. That means something to me.

 

The real problem is the fallacy that a KD is necessarily from a devastating blow.

There are times when KD's are 'flash' or even to do more with balance than the force of a punch. In these cases it becomes absurd if a fighter is not truly hurt by a KD, dominates outside of it and loses 10/8. Even more absurd is when a KD is misjudged and then a fighter loses 10/8 because of a simple error when it's so easy to lose your feet in sport.

Another thing is that fighters can often be more hurt on their feet than with a KD. Example, Ortiz had Wilder more hurt on his feet then Wilder had Fury hurt after either KD, even the big 12th round one.

So you can get situations where a fighter suffers a flash KD and then goes on to seriously hurt the opponent but can't get him off his feet and he'd lose 10/8.

It should be more about damage and hurt than KDs. There are just so many cases of fighters being seriously hurt on their feet compared to KDs which don't do much. Just think of Andy Lee stopping Korobov or Groves stopping Chudinov. Both cases the hurt fighter didn't even look like going down and the ref stepped in after 15 punches or so. If the bell rang a moment earlier, and no stoppage, how are these sequences not worse than a KD where the fighter continues in good form?

 

This ends the thread. As confirmed by The Ring as well.

https://www.ringtv.com/122349-when-does-a-knock-down-not-result-in-a-10-8-round/

 

10 (-1) to 9. The point deduction is separated from the rounds.

 

So it's effectively 9-9...

 

No.

 

"Adalaide Byrd scored that round 10-9 ". Sorry but that makes the scoring null and void.