The system should stay the way it is. To prevent exactly what fighters like Hopkins do sometime, spoil fights and make them borefests. The fighter pressing the action and knocking his opponent down deserves that extra incentive.
If a fighter in a four round fight gets knocked down three times and his opponent doesn't get knocked down once, why on earth would he deserve to win a decision?
I pretty much agree with the original poster. The "harsh" scoring system is a result of the ref having to intervene to protect a fighter. He is giving a boxer an unnatural time to recover( unnatural in terms of breaking up the fight in order to protect a boxer). For this, the boxer taking advantage of the count must pay a big price.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gi55n0a4kk&feature=related[/ame] How would you have scored round 7 if Jay Nady ruled it a knockdown? Marquez was clearly winning the round then Barrera scored a knockdown (ruled a slip even tho Stevie Wonder could have seen it). Would you still score this a 10-8 round for Barrera?
*So ,what ur saying is that if a guy goes down 3 times in 1 round..just stop the fight? What if the guy wins the next three rounds, but lost the first cuz he got caught... so he loses the fight cuz of one round?
I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Do you not want knockdowns to count for anything? Again, in a four round fight, if fighter a does not get knocked down and fighter b gets knocked down three times, fighter b doesn't lose the fight 'because of one round' he likely loses the fight because he got knocked down three times. Why would it make a difference whether those knockdowns occur in one round, two rounds or three seperate rounds?
I can see the argument for those who think if you're pummelling a guy and yet you get knocked down you should be given some credit for the round... But that said, ALL your pumelling couldn't put him down and in 1 punch he did it to you. Knock downs are a great achievement in a round of boxing and should be rewarded as such. The ultimate goal is to knock them the **** out and a knock down is a big step to achieving that.
100%. Looking at it from an objective point of view, and not favoring one boxer, or type of boxer over another, I think it is fair to give a fighter a round even if he gets KD, as long as he thoroughly dominates it. Otherwise, you'd be favoring big punchers over boxers IMO. KD's occur.....flash KD's occur. I have no problem NOT scoring it a 10-8 round if the guy doesn't deserve it. He may have done everything else wrong for the entire round, and 1 lucky shot should win him the round? (It could very well win him the fight, I know) He could be getting battered, showing inferior punching, defense etc...... but the 1 pumch not only wins him the round, but gets him a 2 pt advantage?
it was not, watch it again, it was on the side of the head just behind the hear. Look at the Green vs Johnson fight, its about the same and everyone agreed at the time!
After everything is said. I cant beleive that people are talking about this round maybe should have been a 10-9 instead of a 10-8 and such and then said "omg robbery of the century in Canada". Either it was easy to score and the 10-8 first round doesnt mean anything, or it was a very close fight and a draw although not perfect for everyone, is a fair result. Dont forget that in this fight, the Belgium judge did indeed gave a 10-9 round for Pascal in the first.
Can't find one post on this one? That's weird isn't it? No because it was good and everyone agreed with it. The post fight interview with Jim Gray almost make me cry, they are so cute how they lick together after the fight.
This is the pros not the amateurs. All fighters know that if they get knocked down they usually lose the round 10-8, it had been like that for a long time. I have no problem with that. Once you start changing the way fights are scored, you become Teddy Atlas, and nobody wants that.