Scoring 10-8 when there is no knockdown

1st round was a clear KD though, couldn't score it 10-8 because it wasn't called, and Bradley wasn't getting dominated the entire round

the 2nd round wasn't a 3 min beating, Timmy was fighting back, i scored it 10-9 Prov

 

It depends on the judge. If youre going by a fighter getting battered for 3 mins then gatti v mayweather round 6 shouldve been one but it wasnt. They need a universal gauge.

 

A perfect example of a standing 10-8 was in the Vargas fight... When he hurt the guy early and beat the crap out of him the whole round without a knockdown

If ur winning 90% of the round than get hurt bad (which is what happened to Bradley) in my opinion that's not a standing 10-8... That's the exact equivalent scoring rounds for one fighter becuz he flurried in the last 30 seconds of a round he otherwise did nothing in... Its wrong

 

I never score 10 - 8 rounds if there is not a knock down because it makes scoring fights even more subjective.

Its to hard to define exactly how much a boxer has to dominate to score a 10 - 8 round without knocking his opponent down imo.

 

Agreed ( sort of ) lol NO KD in the 1st a push and loss of balance trying to get back up to quickly.

 

The sixth round of Gatti vs Mayweather is a perfect example of what should be scored 10-8.

 

I think it is possible that 10-8 rounds without KDs are underutilized. In practice they seem to require one fighter to utterly physically dominate the other with power punches throughout an entire round. Think of Klitschko vs Wach, and how one-sided it was, basically 10 or 11 of the rounds could have been scored 10-8, but it was only Round 8, when the beatdown was at its worst, that two of the judges scored it 10-8 for Klitschko. There should be leeway to win a round 10-8 without having to dominate a round as much as Klitschko did that Round 8. But on the flip side, with boxing judges so often being incompetent or corrupt, it is probably best to give them as little leeway as possible in scoring a fight.

 

On one hand i think that a fighter deserves not to lose that extra point when he manages to stay up.
But then again, if he gets a royal ass kicking like Bradley did, then why not give the other guy an extra point ?

Bradley was punching back but he was getting rocked and Provodnikov dominated him.
Remember when Harold gave 10-8 to Maidana for beating the crap out of Khan ? I think Maidana deserved that point. He managed to Hurt Khan bardly and continued to do so.

 

That would be a round deserving of it, I scored one of the Mayweather vs Gatti rounds a 10-8, can't remember which. Very rarely do i do it but there are occasions where the dominance is enough to do it

 

one of the judges for Hearns/Leonard 2 scored it 10-8 for Leonard in the 12th round. Totally ridiculous.

 

You will be adding more subjectivity in the scoring system. More room for judges to manipulate score.

Even though one fighter isn't awarded a 10-8 for giving a bad beating to his opponent, it doesn't matter because the advantage will be factored in the next round.

If we want to spread the scoring a little give 10-7 rounds for real KD and 10-8 for flash KD.

 

I believe getting the round even is the best you can do, and I think it's best that way, otherwise knockdowns don't have much of an effect. You can get knocked down a variety of ways but they count for something extra. Always have.

 

Only if the fighter doesent throw back and is getting battered

I think floyd gatti is the only one I can remember in recent times

 

But what if he is throwing bat but with no or little effect ?

 

Now you would have to define a flash KD. It´s not as simple as it sounds.