Jean Pascal v Bernard Hopkins, thoughts.

That´s what happened in the third IMO. Hopkins won 2:50 of the round but got knocked down. The first one was closer but then it shouldn´t have been ruled a KD.

 

By dominating I mean more than just winning. Unless Hopkins was throwing and landing punches every second of the round, he couldn't have won 2:50 of it.
If the referee ruled it a KD, the official judge has to score the round accordingly, whether he agrees with that ruling or not. Otherwise there will be chaos.

 

I agree with your second sentence. I scored both rounds 10-8 for Pascal. Somebody mentioned that 10-8 rounds for a KD are a bit unfair when the other fighter is winning that round because it´s a 3 point swing. I agree with that, especially when the KD is only a flash KD. But it is what it is and so we have to go by the rules.

Hm, I think Hopkins clealry proved his superiority in that round. Pascal couldn´t do anything outside of that KD. I have a hard time giving the round to Pascal despite the KD not even talking about 10-8. But you have to go by the rules ...

 

A KD round isn't officially a 10-8 round, if the fighter who gets kd'ed wins the round it should be either drawn or 10-9 to the fighter scoring the kd

 

The rule is not official, but absolute majority of official judges score such rounds 10-8, regardless of who was having the better of the round.

 

Many instances where they don't though, including last night, you can also have 10-8 rounds without 1 man going down. Its just safer ground to take the simpler option, not necessarily the correct choice

 

10-8 rounds without a KD happen very seldom too. Say, a lot of RJJ fights in the past were totally one-sided, but weren't scored 10-8. Whether it's fair or not in not very significant. I just can't take it seriously when the 10-9 scoring is explained by "it wasn't a legit KD", as seems to be the case for 1st round in this fight. Did anyone here score the rounds where W. Klitschko was down in 1st Peter fight as 10-10 or 10-9 because W. was winning the rounds?

 

I'm not talking about 1sided more like Khan-Maidana round 10 where 1 opponent is pretty much out and getting battered senseless

The reason a 10-8 round is 10-8 is because 1 man won the round and then knocked his man down scoring him an extra point. Now if the other man wins a round and then goes down for a flash KD is it really fair taking 3 points off him for a flash KD? I mean seriousy a 3 point swing for 1 flash kd?

In answer to your Q a few claimed the Monte Barrett KD against Klitschko shouldn't have won him the round and it should have been level

 

And if one fighter is winning 11 rounds and 59 seconds of a 12-round fight, and then gets knocked out at the very end of final round, it's not fair either. KDs give advantage, because they are harder to get than to just get the better of the round. Want to even it out? Score a KD yourself.

 

I'm not blown away by this Pascal...or hopkins that much either...I still think the best man in the division is the currently deposed Chad Dawson, who will be back to redeem himself vs Pascal...and that's the last thing Hopkins wants.

 

I know it's not the done thing, but to me the logical thing to do if fighter A is outclassing fighter B and fighter B scores a flash knockdown, is to score the round even, 9-9 is the most logical thing to me, but any even score is ok. I know that jusdges score it 10-8 to the guy who scored the knock down, but i thing it's wrong.

 

There's no such thing as 9-9 in the first place, with 10-points-must-system. Outclassing is one thing, having (slightly) the better of the round is another.

 

If Pascal the rascal had ANY ring smarts at all he would have beaten or even stopped Hopkins.

 

I said to me 9-9 is the most logical, but i know that it isn't the done thing. So you don't need to try and patronise by telling me there is no such thing, i clearly already know.

Yes, i'm not understating the weight of a knockdown, i know what a knockdown is, and i rate knockdowns, i scored round three of Hopkins-Pascal 10-8 without issue, i thought the round was close, and then there was a knockdown, 10-8 for Pascal.

What i was saying is that if i'm embarrassing my opponent, then he knocks me down, and i get up and continue to embarrass him, to me the right thing to do is to score it 9-9, because it would be 10-9 but i lose a poit for touching down (that's all a kd is, a point deduction for going down), but seen as though it's 10 point must, i'm happy with 10-10.

What would you do in that scenario as the judge? Would you give it 10-8? Each to their own if you would, but that seems wrong to me.

 

Like I already have said, I'd only score the round 10-9 if the fighter (who was knocked down) clearly dominated the rest of the round, ie put a thorough beating to his opponent (who scored the KD). I mean, a situation where if not for the KD, I would have scored the round a 10-8 for the first fighter (who was down). But not if he simply was getting the better of his opponent.