The case against 10-10 rounds

Hate even rounds myself. The UK judges/refs do it a lot.

I'm on the US/Canada side with that one.

 

I think its fair though. Sometimes rounds are just too close to call, and it's fair to say the round was even. If we don't allow 10-10 rounds, then the judges will start guessing in close rounds and that wont be fair.

It all works itself out in the end I think.

 

And I think the lack of 10-10 rounds by official judges here in America results in a lot of the controversial decisions that exist today. Any time you have a close round, and a judge is forced to choose a winner, you're going from both fighters potentially being on even ground going into the next rounds, to someone potentially winning that doesn't deserve to be winning.

It's a slippery slope though, because if 10-10s are encouraged or even allowed, you could end up with judges scoring a majority of rounds even and only scoring a round 10-9 when it's crystal clear that one fighter won it. But is that so bad really? Is it really bad if a judge scores 8 or 9 rounds even, and chooses the winner based on one fighter winning only a handful or rounds clearly? That's arguably more accurate than trying to pick a winner each round even if most rounds are basically even. But of course it depends on the match itself you are scoring and how close rounds actually are.

I did like reading the article about the case against 10-10 rounds, I think there's legitimiate arguments for or against judges being allowed to score rounds 10-10. I also think it would be interesting if judges were allowed to score a round 9-9 if lets say both fighters do nothing in a round and refuse to throw punches, vs scoring a round 10-10 when both fighters are landing.

Remember boxing judging worked well and there was less controversy with decisions as there is today long before there was a 10 point must system (a lot of that is due to social media and forums like this in fairness, but still). Referees used to one of the judges or was the sole judge even in the not too distant past in some areas like the U.K. And I would argue that referee judges are a long forgetten part of boxing that maybe we should consider re-implementing if we want to think of creative ways to improve scoring, in addition to allowing judges to score more even rounds.

I personally tend to give a winner in most rounds on my cards, but occassionally will score a 10-10 round. I think that how it should be, but it really depends on how close rounds are. I understand the argument that allowing 10-10 rounds causes judges to be lazy and I think that's a fair criticism but like anything else it's not a one size fits all thing. I think some judges would be better scoring more rounds 10-10 while other judges are better having to pick a winner every round. However personally I think commissions should allow judges to score whichever way they want to, and shouldn't be forced to pick a winner every round like they are now.

 

Lets fix corruption first

 

Do you think that not allowing judges to score 10-10 rounds could be a source of corruption? Forcing judges to choose a winner even in rounds that are too close to call, could that be the source of a lot of judging problems and controversial decisions? Historically, in the old days, even rounds were a very common thing. That was the way judges were originally instructed to score rounds.

 

I think neither is perfect, but I believe in even rounds. If pro judges don't believe there's enough in a round to decide it then that's saying something.

Sometimes rounds are just too close to call and deserve a 10-10. It's better than just doing the opposite where there'd be a lot of guessing.

10-10 rounds exist because judges aren't always sure and believe it was genuinely even.

 

The only time even rounds make sense (in my humble opinion) are when they're 9-9 rounds (someone wins the round but a point is taken from the winner for whatever violation), or maybe the oddity that is a double knockdown round, although even in double knockown rounds, there's usually still a clear winner.

10-10 rounds are for lack of a better word, stupid. Someone won the round, or in the case of a horrendous round, someone still lost the round more..........Make a damn decision.

 

Even if it were though, and judges all of a sudden started scoring most rounds 10-10, is that even a bad thing? There's an argument that even if most rounds were scored 10-10, that this would produce more accurate scoring and less controversial decisions.

Because then only the rounds that were clearly, no-doubt-about-it won by either fighter would be determining the final result and who wins in the end, NOT the hard-to-score rounds that are close to even which are always determining results nowadays and producing all the controversial decisions.

 

Not in the old days there weren't. In the mid 1900s it was very common for half or more of the rounds to be scored even. By referee judges especially who often couldn't make their mind up unless someone really got hurt badly in a round or something.

So I don't think even rounds are a red flag at all. Of course it depends on what kind of a fight you're scoring. Is it a Mexican Style match where 2 guys are slugging it out every round and beating each other up badly round after round where it's easier to determine when someone clearly wins a round? Or is it a defensive chess match where neither fighter is barely landing any punches and it's hard to decide who is winning rounds since neither guy is getting hit with any major punches or taking any damage?

Well I think what you're getting at is that it takes a certain type of a mind to balance everything that happens and decide what the threshold is to deciding if a round is 10-10 or if someone wins it.

 

Yet that's the way judging was done throughout most of the 1900s before there was a 10-point must system. Even after the 10-point must system was implemented for a while before even rounds were discouraged by commissions.

I just find it ironic that people claim there's so much judging corruption these days compared to the old days, but yet in the old days even rounds were very common whereas today they're not even allowed.

 

I prefer having even rounds available because the must system allows a fairly even fight to be scored a rout in the favour of a guy who may have even lost the fight. Otherwise they need to have a wider range of scores in rounds. If I have to score with the must system then I tend to alternate even rounds between the fighters in question. Sometimes there really isnt a clear winner of a round

 

When you get even rounds it's normally in a competative close fight

How I deal with them is if there is an even round which is rare I'll give the next close to even round to the other guy. ideally you'd get two "even" rounds which you can split 10-9 between both men. But it's not often.

It's supposed to be a round by round basis but sometimes that doesn't do justice for who won a fight. You can win a fight fairly clearly even if you only win 6 rounds on a scorecard and it should technically lead to a draw.

I think D.Garcia Vs Lamont Peterson is a good example of this. I think Lamont won the fight based on his late fight activity & damage but a draw or 1 point to either fighter was acceptable.

All scoring systems have their flaws, just have to deal with it.

Boxing is so corrupt anyway it's a small potatoes issue, getting decent scorecards is all you can ask for. When it's a close fight between two big names it's a hold your breathe robbery incoming moment EVERY TIME. Then if you get good cards it's a great feeling.