The 10-8 round conundrum

Good thread idea, and at the end of the day it boils down to one's own judgement. There are of course no hard and fast rules.

Another example might be either round five or round twelve of the Leonard-Hearns rematch.

 

I don't mind 10-8 rounds being scored, but the guy getting the 10 points must put a tremendous beating on his opponent. No way was round 6 of Leonard-Hearns 1 10-8, Tommy dominated the first 2 minutes or so with his jab and had the hook working well off of it. He was landing some good shots even though rubbery legged.

 

Agree. It must be an asswhipping of a round. Just wobbling the other guy when he was in the fight doesn't qualify.

 

Hearns was injured in this round. But there is nothing much to philosophize about, since there were no knockdowns, this round is clearly won by SRL 10-9.

 

It's a grey area but wouldn't hang a tag as dramatic as conundrum on it.

They might be thrown around too liberally by some armchair scorers, just as with even rounds - but just as with even rounds they are something that exists in theory and can be valid to sprinkle in here and there when the situation demands it.

For me, it needs to be one guy badly hurt and on the verge of going down for a prolonged time but managing to keep his feet. The classic "battered from pillar to post" for the bulk of the round but never quite goes horizontal. To me, that would be inappropriate to score merely 10-9. Anything short of that, and going 10-8 is questionable.

 

I believe there are at least some guidelines from commisions though. It may probably change over time as well. I read for example that recently Association of Boxing Commisions had a meeting to "Formalize guidelines" regarding knock-down rounds being scored 10:8 more strictly, after Ryan Garcia vs Gervonta Davis controversy.
I believe the same was done regarding not scoring rounds even, which is why it's far more rare these days than it used to be. Since not many judges seems to score rounds without knock-downs 10:8 in recent years, I suspect it's also somethig that judges are adviced not to do unless it's really drastic level of dominance with a lot of punishment inflicted.

 

There’s a Door No. 3 if we wish to overhaul scoring (probably not going to happen, but events occur that lead to tidal shifts in how fights are officiated and/or scored, usually after a major controversy).

Something along the lines of:

10-9 = Fighter A won the round, but not by a super-wide margin … routine round won … OR guy lands a very telling shot and follows up but lost most of the rest of the round

10-8 = Fighter A does major damage (wobbles the guy, has him doing the chicken dance, batters him pretty good) and the round is otherwise even/close or Fighter A would have won it without the major damage

10-7 = knockdown

10-6 = two knockdowns or maybe even three

10-5 = three knockdowns in some cases

That still only uses half the spectrum of point differential possibilities (what would a 10-0 round look like if it went the full 3 minutes without a stoppage?).

I’m not arguing in favor of this, but it’s worth a discussion.

 

There’s also the question of what do you do with a round that’s pretty close but has a flash knockdown — something like Leonard putting Benitez down with a jab when he caught him flat-footed? No major damage but you can’t ignore it either.

To me that’s Leonard 10-9 all day.

 

Systems like that have been proposed & discussed on this forum and elsewhere over the years, but, with boxing such a decentralized sport and there not being a global oversight body we're unlikely to see a revamp on 10 point must anytime soon.

Of course there are some countries where they have made tweaks; half-rounds for instance (10-9.5) are prevalent especially in Latin America, but that all sort of exists in a bubble largely ignored by the rest of the world.

 

I actually like that a knockdown, even if just an off-balance bloop, counts against you in scoring. Incentivizes defending yourself at all times.

 

It is called a "10 Point Must System." The winner of the round gets 10 points, the loser 9 or less. Additional MANDATORY point deductions for knockdowns. According to the rules, the judges are given great leeway to score rounds more disparately than 10-9 if so deserved. However, it is almost never done. Essentially, by doing this, most judges are turning a TEN point system into a two or three point system. This form of judging plays into the hands of more defensive oriented fighters, and, also makes it far easier to fix the results. There have been countless fights where one fighter dominates the other fighter for six rounds, and, the other fighter squeaks by with six close rounds. In the amateur ranks, the first fighter would win by a considerable margin. In the pro ranks, it is very obvious from looking at the damage done that the first fighter has won the fight. Yet, the fans may be left with an unsatisfying, and, often undeserved draw. Although unscrupulous judges could find a way to cheat with any system, I believe that overall, using a larger portion of the available ten points would ultimately result in more just outcomes in the hands of honest, competent judges.

 

What you propose makes far more sense that what judges do today.