How to score a double knockdown?

I just ordered a new magic mushroom kit this past weekend so yes.

 

I already acknowledged I was wrong in the scoring but its due to the rules contradicting each other.

This point you made is what I attempted to explain on why I felt there was a contradiction. You have a better way of articulating this

"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.

 

My apologies, I didn't read the entire thread.

 

There was a physical action, it just wasnt deliberate. The two arent mutually exclusive. Whatever you inferred is on you.

Of course its immaterial. Whether Wolgast fell on Rivers knee, or Rivers kneed him it means Wolgast wasnt down from a punch so Welch assisting him up from either a fall or a foul is not controversial. Its asinine to pretend that Wolgast injuring himself while falling should count the same as a knockdown or that it ever has. You say you havent seen MANY instances of fighters tripping and being helped up by the ref but you damn sure havent seen any instances of a fighter losing a fight because he knocked his opponent out and injured himself in the process.

So an official arbiter has no discretion in the matter... LOL

So basically your view is pointless because you havent seen the fight or even read anything other than popular drivel written about it years later and you are just arguing for arguments sake that the OFFICIAL arbiter who was standing right there was wrong and you, standing over a century later and completely ignorant to the situation are right. Got it. LOL.

 

This has to be the most confusing statement I have read in the last hour.
"Whether Wolgast fell on Rivers knee, or Rivers kneed him it means Wolgast wasnt down from a punch"

If Wolgast fell on the Knee of Rivers then that means Rivers was laying on the canvas knocked out so the first part of your statement is complete nonsense.

 

This is actually the scenario I laid out earlier in the thread, George.

Fighter A dominates Fighter B for almost the entire round, giving Fighter B a substantial beating but not scoring a knockdown.
Fighter B then scores a flash knockdown of Fighter A at the very end of the round.

What you’re saying, based on the rules you stated, is that Fighter A could still be awarded the round (10-9) despite being the only one knocked down in the round?

This certainly seems fair to me in this specific scenario but, like you, I can’t think of an actual example of this scoring happening in this specific scenario, though.

I wonder if @scartissue or anyone else can think of one.

 

Hi George,

The post of mine you quoted related specifically to the Association of Boxing Commission guidelines to judges, a link to which I posted in the 2nd page of this thread. It provides guidelines on how to score rounds and then gives numerous hypothetical "situations" as examples. If you read it, it is clear, as I said, that applying the guidance, there are no circumstances under which a fighter can suffer a KD, not score a KD, and lose the round.

I never said that wasn't possible under the rules or guidelines of different commissions and accept it may be.

 

Cheers Clum, interesting real world example.

I can only think of three plausible explanations - 1) The judge incorrectly applied the ABC guidelines, as you suggest may have happened; 2) The ABC guidelines were different then; or 3) Another commissions guidelines were governing that fight.

 

I don’t hold people to semantics but since you claimed it’s “on me” I will.

You know it’s not on me, it’s obviously on you.

You wrote “kneed” which is reasonably understood to mean that the owner of said knee physically moved their knee to come into contact with the recipients groin.

After I highlighted the difference, you modified your expression to Wolgast “falling” on River’s knee. You even said that Wolagast stated that the knee/groin contact wasn’t intentional or deliberate on River’s part - well since it WAS Wolgast who FELL onto the already downed Rivers, that’s stating the bleeding obvious, isn’t it?

The “physical” action in that event was ALL Wolgast’s NOT River’s. Small gem of a point.

I think we’ve all seen Jack A**es Steve O run his face into Tyson’s outstretched arm and fist - no one is going to say that Mike “punched” Steve O, are they?

I’m not ignorant of the event at all. Clearly, your argument is failing to even try and suggest same.

Your own conclusions don’t hold water even when run up against your own “version” of events. I’ve simply identified a clear lack of objective logic on your part.

The ref’s are NOT empowered with the discretion to “assist” one fighter inequitably - which it seems is exactly what Welch did. You’re trying to argue against SOLID fact but it sure isn’t washing.

Who needs films? Your version: Wolagast put Rivers down with a legit body attack. But then silly Ad falls onto Rivers and River’s knee causing a SELF INJURY.

After being put down, River’s has endured the added bonus of Wolgast falling on top of him. Unintentional but was that legit and should Rivers suffer for that while the self injured Wolgast is helped to his feet.

Of course not. But as far as your biased treatment goes - I will stay “GOT IT!”.

In all objectivity, the only one positing an asinine argument is yourself.

Nice side step btw. You claimed plenty of examples of ref’s helping fighters up. That is definitely on you - show the examples which reasonably compare to the Wolgast-Rivers scenario.

I’m the one who identified the scenario as highly peculiar - now you’re trying to tell me same back and requesting examples. Lol.

I don’t believe I said or implied that Wolgast should necessarily lose - I spoke of inequity but if a fighter does injure himself and can’t continue due that injury - in a lot of cases it’s tough ****.

Okay, so now you have Rivers “knocked out” when Wolgast fell on top of him, Ad injuring himself in the process. River’s wasn’t literally knocked out when Ad FELL on him - and that fall on top of River’s (not fault of Rivers) corrupted the conventional process applied for KDs and counts.

I also really like the banal device “So you know better than the official arbiter over a century after the fact…etc”. Were you at the fight per chance - so every fight you’ve not witnessed for yourself live - you WILL defer to the official decision(s) as described and never claim to “know better”?

Funny, reading your posts previously on other subjects and fighters, that’s not the MO you consistently follow - perhaps it’s only when it suits your argument.

Were not a good number of spectators in attendance displeased with Welch’s actions - yes, I think they were - you know, they were actually there, unlike you and I but you “think” you know better.

Though I’ve moved with your “version” and description of events - given your own flawed processing of what you “saw” on the films - I certainly wouldn’t be relying on your description of the events until I saw the film myself.

 

Sweet. Through Amazon? I’m a member, that’s all, so a discount on the kit might be applicable.

 

Yeah, it seems like something which would never happen, but going off the rules from that handbook I was given, it's not impossible.

 

It's a 9-9 round.

 

My apologies, I didn't mean to try and seem like I was calling you wrong and such, I'm actually just strangely passionate about how things are scored

There are some very good posts in this thread, yours - and BoBox's - included.

 

No worries George and no apology necessary. Tbf, whilst reading the various situations in those guidelines helped me get some things clear in my own mind, they could still be more explicit in the language used, there's still scope for some ambiguity in a couple of hypothetical, but realistic scenarios.

 

Jel, check out the first round between Fighting Harada v Bernardo Caraballo. It totally fits the description of what you are looking for.