Corruption will run rampant whatever choices judges have. Byrd's score against GGG proves it. Evidently so long as a fighter isn't stretchered out, a judge can see a fighter getting bossed around the ring as actually controlling the fight ...
Not only should they be allowed to exist, they should be compulsory ! Okay, maybe a little OTT, but I think that if it is not patently evident who won a round, it should be thrown out, i.e. scored even. Judging is done in real time, and even legit judges don't have the benefit of rewatching the tape, so if it's close enough to require deep thought, then neither fighter did enough to win the round. The existence of even rounds might prompt fighters to be more aggressive and try harder to leave no doubt. Of course, as Big George remarked, it's always best not to leave matters to the judges.
I score more even rounds that most real judges do. I look at it like this… if a round is so close that I really can’t decide who won it, why should it count as much as a round where one guy completely dominates the other (but doesn’t score any knockdowns)?
Exactly, I've seen more rounds than I can count where neither man actually WON the round they were just feeling each other out and no hard punches were landed and the punch stats were within 1 or 2. Textbook 10-10 round.
It's lazy to score the round 10-10. Too easy to sit on the fence and score it even. Judges need to find who edged the round and give their opinion on that through their scoring.
This is true, but boxing is not scored with any sort of scientific quantification. It doesn't even have a set policy ffs. That's why even rounds should be scored. Otherwise any remotely close round will be scored in favour of whoever is lining the pockets of that judge.
OK. But the question is not whether it is lazy, moral, exact,...etc. rate the round 10:10. Rather, whether the evaluation of the 10:10 round should be completely removed from use, or not?
I definitely think that 10-10 rounds should be used when necessary. One round can decide a fight and if a round is so close you can't decide, it shouldn't decide the fight.
Yeah. A round is worth too much to just give it to someone because you have to, even though it might be difficult to split them and it's often subjective. Why isn't an even round possible, averaged out? Even scores are possible in other sports all the time. So to compare to tennis, if they each get 6 games there is a tiebreaker to actually decide, there's a mechanism for that. Where as in boxing a judge just gives it to Mayweather, Canelo, AJ etc.
As a follow-up.... At least half of all Round 1's in major fights I have watched in the past few years are draws...feeling out rounds where neither man did much , if anything. I was reminded of this watching Canelo GGG 3. Fury-Wlad ? Two, maybe three rounds to Fury. One round to Wlad.... Eight or nine rounds even. And numerous other examples exist where there is little to pick between fighters in a given round, and this encourages more subjectivity on the part of judges than needs to be, resulting in bad decisions. If it's not clear who won a round, score it even. Make a fighter fight to win a round.