Knockdowns result in a 10-8 round deal with it

i agree .

 

to get a 10-8 round with out a knockdown has to be a vicious beatdown though.

 

Guy wins round and gets knocked down 10-9 to the guy who knocked him down.

Guy loses round and gets knocked down 10-8 to the guy who knocked him down.

That's the way it is. See Pac-Cotto for it being implemented correctly.

 

Given how rare knockdowns are in boxing, I do think having 10-8s reserved for knockdown rounds is a good idea. If there isn't a knockdown, I don't think you should be handing out 10-8 willy nilly. I don't typically give 10-8s without a knockdown, but I do utilize 10-10 rounds to offset close rounds rather than just giving someone a round when it's hard to decide.

What I do, rather than give 10-8s with no knockdowns, is try to keep an internal track how many rounds are dominant and how many are close. You just need to be aware of how many close rounds you give each fighter and how many rounds each fighter dominated. You don't want to give the same fighter all the close rounds and have him winning over a guy who dominated more rounds. So I get where you're coming from wanting to score more rounds 10-8 to scale how much separation there is in a round. But it's a very hard thing to gauge because you don't know how close the later rounds are going to be when you are scoring the earlier rounds.

That said, when it comes to scoring, as long as you have a reason I'm sure there's plenty of rounds with knockdowns that you can justify 10-9s or 9-9s. One of the problems though when you do that you is that you run the risk of basically negating the knockdown itself. If you start giving 10-8s with no knockdowns and score rounds with knockdowns even or closer then it's like you could find yourself ignoring knockdowns entirely without even realizing it. And when it comes to official judges, asking them to go through those mathematical gymnastics on the fly is asking for too much out of them. We have enough problems with judges scoring non-knockdown rounds. You don't want to allow judges opinions to over-rule knockdowns. It sounds great and might work in your personal scoring, but as a boxing standard it would become a problem.

One fight that comes to mind that had 10-8 rounds without knockdowns was Leonard Hearns 2 "The War". And those 10-8 rounds without a knockdown resulted in a draw that most thought Hearns won. (even SRL admitted later he thought Tommy won) In that, one judge had the 12th round in favor of Leonard 10-8 without a knockdown which resulted in the draw. But in addition to that, all 3 judges scored the 5th round 10-8 in favor of Leonard which didn't have a knockdown either.

In the 5th, Tommy was actually dominating the first minute, so Tommy had a definite early lead in that round. but with 1:42 left in the round Leonard landed a 3 punch combo, which was a 1-2 followed by a big left hook that staggered Hearns and sent him crashing into the ropes. After that SRL was all ovrer Hearns for the remainder of the round, landed several additional big shots and Hearns was on wobbily legs but he didn't go down. All 3 judges giving SRL that 5th round 10-8 is a little surprising considering how well Tommy did in the first minute which they surely forgot about the moment SRL landed that left hook. But it surely had to do with how wobbily legged Tommy was.

If those 10-8s in "The War" would have been 10-9s, Tommy Hearns would have won which most fans thought he did. Instead we got a draw duo to giving SRL multiple 10-8s with no knockdowns. Those were big rounds for SRL though but did he really deserve to win the 5th 10-8? I mean sure what he did in the last 2 minutes were massive, but with the benefit of hindsight, Tommy outlanded SRL by a lot in that first minute, enough to keep it 10-9 SRL imho. That said, I do understand why those judges scored that round 10-8 for SRL and don't really have a problem with it.

 

Who argues with that though? Everyone knows KD rounds = 10-8 pretty much no matter what. Even if you lose the round overall. Personally I'm not that big a fan of the rule though, I think it's fine if you dominate the round but if you get your ass beat in that round, it shouldn't be a 10-8. That skews scoring too much in your favour from one action.

 

A KD is an instant 10-8 barring basically the other guy getting rocked multiple times. That's very rare.

A knockdown is a huge part of the sport, and deserves the point deduction when you get floored.

 

I think the rule is handled fine. If a kd is a flash kd and the fighter that is knocked down has a good round i’m Ok with the judges only making the round a 1pt round. For the record regarding this fight - I don’t believe Fury’s offense was good enough to warrant him getting a 10-9 round although I did believe he won the rounds outside of the kd.

 

Not always, ive seen plenty of 10-9 rounds with knockdowns. The 2 on Saturday were 10-8 rounds as far as im concerned. Fury won most of the rounds as far as im concerned but they were never so wide that i would demand only a 1 point difference.

 

I agree with this. I feel 10-8 should reflect some sort of dominance over your opponent.

Imagine you’re losing a round handily and you secure a flash KD on your opponent when he was off balance. He gets up, he’s not hurt and he continues to win the rest of the round clearly. You getting a 10-8 doesn’t feel right to me.

 

Yep, I think if you got the KD but lose the round otherwise. It should be 10-9. I think that would be fair.

 

I had a conversation with CST a while back. We had a difference of scoring in the Chris John vs JM Marquez bout. I had to look up the rules and he was right.

The round is scored normally. Ten points for the winner, nine for the loser. After that, you deduct a point from the guy who was knocked down for every knockdown.

If a man dominates a round he's knocked down in. It's permissible to score that 9/9. Many would probably score it 8/10, but that is left to the interpretation of the judge.