The 10 point must system

I mean, it's almost as if the guy can't find any examples of what he's claiming to be the procedure and so is now trying to hide behind the one thing is knows 10-1=9. He got so gassed up on working out that head scratcher that he can't now comprehend a situation in which a knockdown is essentially nullified by another knockdown by the opposing fighter.

If and this is a big if he ever realises what a dummy he's been here I doubt we'll ever hear from his dumb ass again.

 

Says the guy that thinks 10 minus 1 is some architect from the matrix ****.

 

To the original scenario worked as a judge/ref for Muay Thai and boxing for WBA, WBC, WMTC, WKA and K-1 for years, done all the qualification courses, all the same in my country. Heard similar questions, same scenario come from people studying to be judges in official courses before and the answer given by sanctioning body reps and the government officials always the same.

In the five seconds you have to fill and hand over your card I never went through the mind twists through this thread.

 

Yeah good one dummy. I was comparing you to him because he's also a dumbass who thinks he's intelligent because he's obfuscating a very simple concept.

Perhaps comparing you to the South Park version of Kanye West totally unable to get the fish sticks joke would have been more apt though.

 

These aren't mind twists. It's literally just "You can't add a point. A point a deducted from a knockdown"

 

I have no idea what this means, This isn't a maths test FFS.

Scenario;

3 minute round.
Fighter A "dominates"Fighter B
Fighter A controls the ring, defence and scoring shots at will with full range of punches for 2 minutes 45 seconds of the round. Gets knocked down clean by Fighter B in the last fifteen seconds and receives a count, sees out the few seconds left.

How do you score it and why? I can tell you in two lines - let''s see how many it takes you.

 

So provide evidence, other than your own words.... you're confusing opinion with fact. All you have to do, to establish your case, is show some proof....

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/what-does-the-term-floored-mean-to-you.247278/

I think we have finally found a worthy rival to this ESB classic....

 

I think there should be a test before you can join this forum

 

@Flamazide, your willful stupidity here is no longer even funny; you're giving everyone a headache. I'm going to spell this out for you this one last time...

• What: procedure for dealing with a round where the combatants are mutually ruled by the referee as each having been knocked down.

• How: the procedure is to either a) decide who the winner of the majority of the round was and then award that combatant the round 10-9 (with the knockdowns essentially canceling one another out, as if they didn't even happen) - or, if they cannot be split, the round scored even 10-10, but as usual this ought to be a rare last resort if a clear winner absolutely cannot be determined.

• Why: because knockdowns are not foul deductions. They don't work the same. The rules state that every single round in professional boxing must award the winner (or both combatants in the case of an even round) ten points, no matter what, unless there is a foul leading to a point deduction. Not a "foul or a knockdown" - just a foul. The rules are clear on this. Knockdowns lead to a 10-8 round 99% of times, but not always. Knockdowns are not mandatory point deductions. That usual 10-8 scoring is a recommended guideline, but not essential. If someone commits a low blow or flagrant intentional headbutt or kidney punch or bites their opponent, etc - and the referee docks a point? There is nothing optional about that. A point deduction there is essential and mandatory per the rules. Knockdowns are merely a scoring factor, they are not an overarching mandate for point deductions in the same manner as penalization for a rules violation. Fouls are treated differently because they ARE different. They are punitive measures for rules violations and therefore not optional. Fouls alone have the power to alter the mandate in the very name "ten point must" - knockdowns don't.

• Who: since the 1980's, at least in North America, by decree of the ABC (the Association of Boxing Commissions, who take delegates from every state & province athletic commission in the United States and Canada, overseeing them and issuing compliance recommendations and certifications for officials). You can easily Google the ABC's regulations for yourself to verify.

• When: ever since 1968, when the WBC introduced a new "ten point must" system to standardize the scoring of professional boxing, which has become adopted worldwide by all licensing bodies and commissions in the intervening five decades.

 

@the factor feel free to quit lurking and step forward from the shadows, you've been strangely silent since your ban was lifted. Get in here and apologize and take your licks like a man, set a good example for your butt buddy Flammy. You guys have lost this war. I just Hiroshimaed you in the above post. All the "proof" either of you ever asked for. You made this really, really hard on yourselves. I'll take just one humble little paragraph saying you were wrong, and you know what? I'll throw you a bone. I don't even need you guys to apologize for all the disrespect directed toward me personally in order for you guys to retain your posting privileges here - but I do need you both to apologize to all the professional judges that have ever scored a mutual knockdown round 10-9 whom you have both blithely dismissed as "having gotten it wrong" when you had NO IDEA WTF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, because those judges were 100% correct and acting in accordance with their training in judging certification courses, under the auspices of the ABC and its equivalent bodies abroad.

 

You have 24 hours, starting...now. As of noon EST tomorrow, Saturday the 6th of April, you both need to fulfill your obligations. If you're feeling lazy or both suddenly have lost your faculties to write long word salad posts where you don't actually say more than a sentence or two's worth of anything, I will accept just ten simple words from each of you:

"We got this wrong. Sorry, all the judges we insulted."

That's all you gotta do. Swallow your pride and copy and paste that one sentence. Or you're outta here, forever.

 

Whoops, in all the idiocy with F&F this got lost in the shuffle. My apologies for leaving the OP hanging, that was rude of me. I had some...pressing matters to deal with.

Yes and no, it would not be necessarily in every case "up to each individual judge" - at least not in the sense that F&F ran away with as the basis for their uninformed and very twisted logic. The judges and the ref all understand the rules per their ABC training & certification. They all understand that a referee alone can determine that a knockdown has occurred, just as the referee alone can determine that a point be shaved for a foul (technically, referees are supposed to have been obligated to first issue at least a warning or two depending on local jurisdictional rules, but most commissions let it slide without any penalties on the ref when they jump straight to a deduction without the appropriate number of warnings, as does happen fairly often) - but here's the deal: the referee (outside the UK anyway) has nothing to do with scoring. That isn't his area of concern. The referee decrees that a knockdown has been scored, and that is a matter of record. On the judges' scoresheets they mark down that somebody has been knocked down, and the commissioner makes a note of it, and the information gets logged into BoxRec and FightFax and whatever other archive for posterity. The downed fighter being dropped is a matter of record - but the official knockdown needn't automatically have a tangible impact on the scorecards. It usually does, but it doesn't have to. If a judge scores a round with a knockdown 10-9, it wouldn't be a case of them "disobeying" or disagreeing with the ref. The ref doesn't give a damn what they score; he signals that a knockdown has been scored to all interested parties, which includes the judges but also both corners and the commission supervisor, just to make it an official matter of record, but the referee doesn't care if the judges then use that decree to form the basis for a 10-8 round. He won't be offended if they don't. If the downed fighter didn't clearly dominate the round, 99% of times it should be 10-8 - but if a judge feels like it, yes, they can make it 10-9. If they do this very often and wind up at odds with their peers, the commission supervisor might pull them aside to question "hey, why do you keep scoring these rounds 10-9 where the boxer that hit the deck really didn't seem to be otherwise dominant? See in this fight here, and this other fight...the other two judges scored it 10-8. What's going on?" - and then citations or re-training could be in order if the judge wants to keep their job. But on a case by case basis that is 100% their prerogative, to ignore the subtraction of points for a knockdown or knockdowns. If a boxer is dropped five times, you might think it automatically becomes a 10-4 round...but if a judge decides to be merciful and cap it off at 10-7, it wouldn't be "wrong" of them. It wouldn't mean they were negating the referee having indicated 5 official knockdowns as being a matter of record.

Now, that's VERY rare that individual judges would take it upon themselves for no defensible reason to ignore the customary progression of point subtractions for knockdowns (10-8 for one, 10-7 for 2, etc) - but to revert to what formed the crux of the controversy that hijacked your thread, let's examine the ultra-rare situation where BOTH fighters are dropping within a particular round:

This would not be a matter of judges' discretion. No individual judge has the right to decide that a round where both fighters are knocked down should be scored 9-8, and if they did so the commission supervisor would say "no, you got that wrong" and the scorecard would either be corrected or the judge would be censured and warned not to do it again, if not forced to undergo re-training in order to keep their job. The judge doesn't get to contravene the "must" in ten point must. Only a foul deduction can do that. When the referee takes a point for a foul, that isn't just a matter of record. That isn't a "suggestion" for a 10-8 round (in an otherwise normal, uneventful round). That is MANDATORY. That is the one time a referee has the power to actually directly influence the scoring. Not with ruling a knockdown - but with taking a point for a foul.

In a round without a deduction for a foul, somebody gets 10 points, no matter what. So if both fighters score knockdowns, they cancel each other right out, and the judges treat both knockdowns for scoring purposes as if they didn't happen (even though, per the referee having officially ruled them as such, they are official knockdowns and matters of record) and just score it 10-9 for whoever they believe won most of the rest of the round (or, again 10-10, in the incredibly rare case that such a round would have been scored even anyway).