10-10 and 10-8 scoring's should be used more liberally.

Well just from a technical view, it is for all intents and purposes impossible for 2 fighters to fight an exactly even round, therefore one fighter had to be slightly better, so long as you are consistent in deciding what things matter to you in choosing the winner of close rounds I don't see the problem. You just can't tell me that the round was exactly the same for both guys.

My main argument is more pragmatic though, once the gate is opened for a tie round, judges will use it way too much, and that would be a real problem.

I think giving fighters the same credit for close rounds as more clear rounds is the only way to do it with round by round scoring, it just provides less opportunity for **** ups and crookedness. Treating each round as its own fight is the way the scoring system is set up, and I think it just makes for a more consistantly fair way to score fights then letting judges read too much into degrees of damage and how much a person won a round by as opposed to the last round and all that.

 

most cries of roberries came from that line of thinking..:yep

 

That wouldn't change with 10-10 rounds, you think people wouldn't complain just as much about a 10-10 round? "That was bull****, he did enough to win that round" "No man, he might have had a slight edge but it wasn't enough"

There will never be a way to determine what is enough for it to not be a tie as opposed to a 10-9, therefore if there is the slightest of visible differences to you, you need to give the round to the guy you thought was better. We have judges for a reason, to make close calls.

 

yah, i agree with that..just saying though that some would feel a robbery was done, everyone will have different views and thats why there are judges. Can't think of any recent fight..perhaps pac-jmm 2 where most felt jmm won

 

I score a KD as 10-8 regardless of how the rest of the round went.
(I scored round one 10-8 to Hops as he scored a KD - a questionable one, but a kd nonetheless)

It's somewhat analagous to awarding the fight to a fighter who loses 11 rounds decisively but pulls off the KO in round 12.

I would also score a very one-sided round 10-8, even without a KD. Mind you, it would have to be really one-sided.

10-10 rounds have their place too, I think. If I really can't pick between the two fighters, I will call it 10-10.

On average, I call about one 10-10 per fight, and a 10-8 without a KD about
once every 5-10 fights.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if we were to forget the current scoring system, if a fighter 'A' won the first 7 rounds by the most miniscule margin possible then and lost the last 5 in the most terrible fashion imaginable without actually getting KDed or stopped - would you think that the fighter that won 7 crappy rounds deserved to win the fight more than fighter 'B' who absolutely dominated 5 and barely lost the rest? This is what ignoring 10-10 rounds would promote, not to that extreme of course but that is the point that most people seem to be making.

I personally think that fighter B would deserve the victory, and an increased use of 10-10 in close rounds would hand the victory to him.

 

Great example. And probably in real life, Hopkins/Taylor 1 is as close as it gets. A couple of 10-10 rounds in the earlier rounds when nothing much was happening would've tipped it in favor of Hopkins. That's why 10-10 rounds gives the more decisive rounds a chance to determine the outcome of the fight while at the same time, not favoring or penalizing either fighter in the razor close rounds. It's like saying, "OK, that was even, let's keep it going."

 

Well if they were fighting with the understanding it would be scored round by round, then A deserves it no question, but thats not what you are saying, I don't think.

If humans could be trusted to accurately remeber the whole fight, score the fight as a whole and be totally fair and objective, then that would be the truest and ideal way of scoring, so yes I think B would deserve the win, if it was known how the fight would be scored ahead of time of course.

However, humans can't really be trusted to do that, especially live.

 

Well, you are saying that scoring is subjective. But what some of us are saying is that by scoring such close rounds 10-10, you take out some of that subjectivity in scoring by allowing the more easier rounds to score to determine the outcome. Again, dont' get the misconception that we are implying that half the rounds in a fight should be 10-10. Not at all. All we are saying is that it should be used when it's appropriate. It has a place in the way boxing should be scored IMO. It's more fair.

 

It's like in some rounds, if someone had a gun to your head and forced you to pick a winner and you honestly couldn't pick one because it was so close but the gunman still demands a winner is the type of stiuation judges are in IMO when they score every round 10-9. They shouldn't be forced into that situation where they have to award one guy and penalize the other guy when it's obvious that it's way too close to pick a winner. That's when 10-10 is appropriate. You skew the scoring by being forced to pick a winner/loser in every round. Just call it like you see it. If it's too close to call, give it a 10-10.

 

By what I said, I'm not really saying that scoring is subjective, I'm saying its incredibly hard to keep a whole fight in your mind at once and not let certain parts interfere with your judgement. Scoring shouldn't be objective in the sense that it is up to each person to decide what wins, it should be a person paying close attention and noticing when scoring criteria are met.

Well starting with the rules, that say the winner gets 10 and the loser 9 or less, that means that no matter how small of a difference there is, if one fighter doesn't do exactly as well as the other he loses. It doesn't say it has to be a certain amount better, or that close rounds are ties, it doesn't say that the winner gets 10 and the loser 9 or less unless its really close. I have yet to see around where the fighters were exactly the same.

There is just as much subjectivity in deciding if it was 10-10 or 10-9, so you're just transfering the problem, only instead of asking somebody to decide who they thought won, you are asking them to decide if somebody won by "enough". The purity of the first question makes it better than the second.

Deciding which of the two you thought was better is a much clearer choice than deciding if you think the winner did enough to get a point. I would much rather have people deciding who did more then trying to decide if they thought somebody did enough more to count.

If we need to be more clear on what wins rounds, then so be it, but since it is never perfectly equal, it should never be scored as such.

 

yep. at the end of the day, i guess giving out 10-10 and 10-8 rounds more liberally can be subject to abuse like anything else. this can thereby render the current scoring system more convoluted, confusing and subjective than it already is.

 

I agree on both counts. If no one decisively wins a round why award it to either guy? We want a true winner at the end of the night, and that means making an effort to win every round. This esp. applies to rounds where there is very little action.


Along w/this, though, refs should do more to make guys fight, i.e. deduct points for holding and running; odd numbered rounds in fights could also be considered.