How to score a double knockdown?

I would've thought it'd be 8-8 but I'd take your knowledge over mine any day.

 

Ding Ding Stallion.

 

Actually it wasnt dodgy at all and the ref was about the only person who got it right. The sequence is on film and you can see exactly what happens. Wolgast is giving Rivers a hellacious body beating. He knocks Rivers down and the momentum of his own punch carries him down with Rivers and when Wolgast lands on Rivers he gets kneed in the groin. Rivers never even lands a punch during that sequence. Welch was absolutely correct in assisting Wolgast off of Rivers and continuing the count and whats more, Rivers' cornerman enters the ring during the count which could have easily resulted in a DQ for Rivers. Id love for someone to show me the imaginary punch that Rivers landed on Wolgast preceding the knockdown(s).

 

Good question Jel.

This is pretty much the scenario described in "situation 1" of the judging guidelines link I posted. The guidance on how to score such a round isn't explicit and is open to interpretation.

For what it's worth, my interpertation is that, in essence, you should apply a 2 point swing to the score of the boxer scoring the KD if they otherwise lost the round. I.e. if you were going to score 10-9 against him without the KD, they win the round 10-9; if the dominance of the other fighters was such that you were going to award them the round 10-8 even without a knockdown, then you score it 10-10.

One thing is clear, you can't lose a round if you score a KD and your opponent does not.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that the footage of the fight was available on YouTube at one time, but it is no longer the case.

If Wolgast's own momentum caused him to land on Rivers, then that's Wolgast's problem anyway, no?

And, in falling onto Rivers, if Rivers' knee hit Wolgast in the groin, that sounds more like a case of Wolgast falling onto the knee as opposed to Rivers deliberately "kneeing" Wolgast. So, even given the scenario you claim, it still doesn't seem cut and dried that Wolgast should've been helped up - he fell on Rivers by way of his own action and that might not have done any favors for the already downed Rivers also.

There is also the question that Rivers arose at the count of 4, on his own steam, at any rate. Add to that, that it appears the round also basically ended before Rivers could have full count of 10 tolled over him. However, as I've read, even though the timekeeper indicated to Welch that the round was over, and allegedly with Rivers on his feet clearly wanting to continue, Welch still awarded the fight to Wolgast.

Even given the scenario you've provided, I think if Welch hauled Wolgast up, at the very least, he should've done likewise for Rivers, allowed a moment then allowed the fight to continue. By falling on Rivers, Wolgast corrupted the usual KD process and treatment.

 

Yeah, I agree - I think the absolute best Fighter A can do is a 10-10 even with their previous dominance. Personally, I feel it gives the knockdown (in this specific scenario) a little too much weight given what happened before but that’s just one of those things.

 

Yes I agree.

Reading the various scenarios, my interpertation is essentially that a fighter scoring a KD in a round they otherwise won gets a 1 point benefit as a result of the KD, whereas a fighter scoring a KD in a round they otherwise lost, gets a 2 point benefit as a result of the KD.

That seems odd to me, but I'm pretty certain that is, in essence, what the guidance seems to be suggesting should be applied.

 

I didnt say anything about Rivers deliberately kneeing Wolgast. That is immaterial Rivers was legitimately down from a punch why should Welch have helped him up. Where as Wolgast was down from trip and we see a fighter in such an instance helped to his feet all the time, sometimes even by the opposing fighter. Moreover, how is Welch supposed to legitimately count over Rivers if Rivers cant get up because Wolgast is on top of him? Finally, Rivers was down for 12 seconds. There is an excellent article that was published after the film was released illustrating that films showed no fouls by Wolgast, no punches by Rivers, that Wolgast momentum caused him to fall, that he landed on Rivers knee and corroborating the amount of time Rivers was down based on the frames per second that were shot. The bell didnt save Rivers but rang AFTER the count and after he had regained his feet. And again, this all transpired with Rivers cornerman fully in the ring and literally standing over his fighter admonishing him to get up during which Wolgast is moving to him to confront him. As I said, Welch was about the only person that got it right. Its been characterized over and over as this famous double knockout but it was nothing of the sort. Rivers never even threw a punch much less landed in the sequence preceding the fighters going down.

 

You wrote “kneed in the groin”, as if there was a physical action on Rivers part to cause his knee to go into Wolgast’s groin.

It’s not immaterial at all. I haven’t seen many instances of fighters tripping and being helped up by the ref - and I assume you’re talking fighters falling in isolation - not fighters falling on top of their already downed opponent, their own fall causing their alleged injury.

As to opponents helping their foes up - well, they would be about the only ones that might have a “right” to do it - obviously that’s up to their own discretion.

Of course the ref can’t count with one fighter on top of the other - that description in itself already tells you it’s a highly peculiar situation -
did Wolgast falling on top of Rivers do Joe any favours? Falling squarely on top of Rivers could be seen to have null and voided whatever KD there was in the first instance. A fighter isn’t meant to be touched at all whilst on the deck.

The “easy” solution wasn’t the right solution - that solution being to lift up the one fighter on top and commence counting over the fighter at bottom.

At least in my view, after addressing all relevant details, Welch inequitably assisted one fighter and not the other, lending to the obvious controversy.

As to who hit who and where just prior to the double fall, I can’t comment further without seeing the films - but naturally, I want to see the film more than ever now.

 

Czyz vs. Williams I, round three.
Czyz blasts an already groggy Williams early in the round, and Williams has to hold onto the ropes to keep from hitting the floor. Carlos Padilla rules it a knockdown. Williams comes back to dominate the final two minutes of the round, rocking Czyz several times but never flooring him.
One judge scores the round for Czyz, but only 10-9. Another judge rules it even. And one judge gives Williams a 10-9 round.
Perhaps that last judge applied the rules incorrectly, but it's an interesting real-life scenario.

 

There is no such thing as a round where there nobody scores less than ten points. No matter what occurs in the round, the deemed winner gets ten points. In the event of a penalty resulting in docked points, the deduction is noted by the judges and reduced from their final tally.

 

Taking the OP question literally - “How to score a double knockdown?”

For your part, you have to hit the other guy sufficiently to cause him to fall.

His responsibility (not yours, though it may be partially yours) is to hit you more or less at the same time and cause you to fall simultaneously, thus resulting in a double KD.

This isn’t Rocket Surgery folks.

‘Shroom, anyone?

 

This is actually untrue, but it's a little but complicated. Especially across the differing variations of the traditional ten point must system.

In Britain, in of 2020 at least; a knockdown does not result in a mandatory point being docked. Instead, it is an event in a round which must be levied in the scoring. The gravity of a knockdown makes it extremely difficult to win a round if the other fighter remains on their feet, but it's not impossible. A much more common situation is that the downed fighter receives nine points rather than eight if their efforts are sufficient enough. Although, most judges would simply decide that the knockdown was sufficient for the downed fighter to lose the round by two points.

The reason the point deduction isn't mandatory is because in a round where both fighters are given counts, neither could be given ten points for the round, which violates the fundamental rule of the Ten Point Must system. In such a case, the two knock-downs must be evaluated along with the rest of the round before scoring. This is what leads to

I don't know of a single example of this, but under the rulebook I was given, it is possible for a judge to award a downed fighter the round if the rest of their work in the round was convincing enough to make the knockdown less substantial than the rest of the round.