Steve Cunningham just scored his own fight with Adamek for the first time

why do you keep bringing this up?

its 2 completely different fights they have no similiarities whatsoever other than 1 fighter getting 3 KDs over the other.

I found 5 rounds to give to Pacman against JMM

I only found 4 to give to Adamek against Cunningham.

Im not crying robbery but you fools are ******s for ridiculing anyone who had Cunningham winning when there is a reasonable way to score the fight for him.

 

Actually the fights are more similar than not...3 KD's(all in 1 round for PAC of course)the man who scored the KD's lost more rounds.Yes they are comparable.

There is no question there would have been greater outrage and controversy over this fight had Steve won.Very difficult to pick yourself up off the canvas 3 times not score any of your KD's and still win.He would have had to pretty much win every round that he didnt get KD'd in and that didnt happen.

Had it simply been a Boxing contest Steve would have won but Adamek made it a fight and there is more ways to win a fight that landing A FEW more punches than your opponent...and aint that the beauty of this sport.

 

Provided that he was a champ, he is American and the fight was in USA - yes there are the reasons to score the fight for Cunningham. Fortunately only 1 judge found such a "reasonable" way to score the fight and finally the better fighter left the ring as a champion. If this fight took place in Germany(vs German fighter), Italy(vs Italian) or even Poland(vs Polish) it would be scored according to this "reasons". Fortunately boxing in USA is much more objective and usually the better figter wins.

I advise You to watch the fight again and dont mind who is the champion, etc. Then You may change Your opinion. You scored almost every round that Adamek didnt win clearly for Cunningham. Its not an objective judging.

EDIT: While watching try to see the reaction of the figter who is beaten - it will tell You a lot about the power of punch. Its proffessional boxing and not only number of punches (like in amateur boxing) is scoring, but also the quality of punches.

 

It is? Is this a new initiative? Or has Houston been ceded to Mexico?

 

when you are deducting a point for a knockdown you don't consider it a points deduction......:nut....score it 10-10 then instead of 9-9....it still doesn't make sense that you get 3 points for a knockdown when you are losing a round and one point for it when you are winning.

It
Does
Not
Make
Sense

and 10 point must is a stupid name for a system that isn't always ten points must

if fighter A wins the round but gets knocked down twice
and fighter B loses the round but gets knocked down once
what do we have?
10 for A for winning
9 for B for losing
deduct two points from A for suffering two knockdowns
deduct one point from B for suffering one knockdown
that leaves us with an 8 - 8 round, which then becomes 10 - 10 under the 10 point must

the problem is the unwritten rule that says you shouldn't score rounds 10 - 10 and forces people into making arbitrary decisions or biased ones because they don't want to turn in a card with a bunch of 10 - 10 rounds

 

If you read the link it is explained fairly clearly. It's not my fault that you don't understand it and then call me a dumbass when I point this out. I think your problem is that you're excluding knockdowns from the judgement of who wins the round, and considering them in isolation. If you considered the round we're discussing, despite the knock down for Adamek, a 10 - 8 round for Cunningham then you would score it 10 - 10 (the two points here are added to Adamek's score, so there is your two point swing). If you considered the round 10 - 9 to Cunningham then you would score 10 - 9 to Adamek (+1 to Adamek, -1 to Cunningham, two point swing). If you considered the knockdown the decisive moment in the round then you could score it 10 - 8 Adamek (again a two point swing).

Personally, I was tending towards a 10-8 round to Cunningham before the knockdown, the knockdown redressed the balance more towards Adamek, but not enough to win the round so I scored 10-9 to Adamek.

 

read the link when you posted, it wasn't much, there isn't anything i haven't understood, its still a three point switch if you're losing the round and score a kd vs a one point switch if your winning the round and you score a kd, and that still isn't right

 

This is only the case if you consider that the knockdown itself moves the fighter from losing the round to winning the round.

 

and unfortunately most do

how many times have we heard announcers say "what would have been a CLEAR 10 - 9 round is now a 10 - 8 round for the other guy!!" I seem to recall the phrase "three point switch" even being used by Merchant as well as the Versus guys

 

Then try to not being KD if You are winning the round 10-8. If a fighter is winning the round very high and then is being KDed in the same round it means that his punches didnt make any impression on the opponent and/or this fighter has got weak chin.

 

what?? that isn't true

it could mean different things in different scenarios
in some cased it could mean the guy was getting his ass kicked all over the ring and it forced him to step it up and that is when he came up with the knock down of the other, more dominant (for that round at least) fighter

and what do you say when one guy comes out and knocks the other guy down in the first thirty seconds, then goes on to get dominated for the next two and a half minutes? You are still calling that 10 - 8 for the guy who scores the kd?

 

Of course not. 10-9 or 10-10 It depends on the level of domnation

I presented one of scenario. I didnt say that it must be in that way. Maybe I used wrong words, I dont speak English fluently (Im Polish) so I make some syntax or grammar mistakes.

 

i wanted to see USS win that fight, but by the end, i knew there was no way in hell he was going to.

with that many knockdowns he would have had to dominate adamek and he definitely didn't.

 

He needs to learn how to be a good loser. Adamek beat the crap out of him.