Add to that the automatic 10-8 in case of a KD. Should not be so but always is on official scorecards. And even rounds should be more common. Some rounds are just too close to call.
A drop my pants at the end of the round and spin around really fast, then flip a coin to see which fighter gets the round Then I take my bribe I am Alejandro Rochin, WBC specialist judge.
I would like to see more 10 - 8 rounds without a kd too, but I disagree about more even rounds. I think given the criteria you should be able to pick a winner in all but the closest rounds.
I disagree. You can't change the parameters of the judging criteria, you must remain consistent. For sure the criteria changes from judge to judge, but commission to commission? Could you elaborate? I judge things for a living, not fights, however if I applied a different standard every time I did my job there would be a lot of unhappy campers.
Some people do that and then crap all over the judges for screwing up, meanwhile they all sit on a different side of the ring seeing essentially a slightly different fight each, trying not to let the crowd bias their view, scoring in real time without the benefit of slow motion or replays.
All the close rounds go to the fighter who's promoter bribed me more. If he's still losing, I give him some late rounds he doesn't actually deserve. If I haven't been bribed, I'll give the close rounds to the fighter that is likely to make big fights in the future and get me a payday as a judge in a future high profile fight.
So you essentially agree with me. Because every year there are only a handful of official draw rounds on big time boxing card, if even that many. Hell, I can´t recall the last time I saw a judges scorecard have a 10-10 round.
On the 10 - 8 rounds, but not on more even rounds. As I said, you should be able to pick a winner of the round using the criteria. I believe there are very few actual even rounds. Don Kings strategy was to invite judges to a party and lavish them with gifts if not outright bribe them. " Hey buddy, nice to see you, take this Tag Heur watch, no strings attached " but they know who's buttering their bread so to speak.
If you think there is corrupt judging now, just imagine how bad it would be if 10-8 rounds without knock downs become common place. No thank you. 10-9 for the winner is plenty. It shows who won the round. Fighter's can gauge how well they are doing without having to worry if some screwball judge is going to score a two point round for some pitty pat jabs.
I have a very simple way to judge a fight. I ask: who hurt the other guy more? Yes, it's a sport where you accumulate points. But it's also a damn fight and the objective is to bring pain to the other person in the ring. In my eyes one massive round for fighter A is more damaging than five rounds narrowly won for fighter B. The problem is how do you fit that into a legitimate scoring system for judges?