10 point must system illogical..

**** you, you gay *****, 10-8s happen in boxing, accept reality ****face, i am correct, and you aren't, eat it *****! :smoke:smoke:smoke

you're a ******, "i admire his heart so give him an extra point", what a ****ing ******, as if that's the way a sport is scored by objective judges!!!!! atsch

 

I need to create an account for the evil me, just so I can go about dishing out insults. Looks like fun. First, I have to learn to stop capitalizing and ditch punctuation. then, I've got to stop speling corectly, butt doo et teh rong way. next cum teh obsenities. shud reed sum rap lyrics und ulyssess bi jimmy joyce. ahh he!!, ***git aboot et!

 

a luv dooin dat 2, lol! :nut

teeto:

'shoulda been a 10-8, but i liked that guys heart so it's a 10-9, in fact i liked that guys shorts as well, they were pure smart and shiny, so it's a 10-10, i dont care about how many punches anybody landsss'

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Haha what a lowlife mug, i've told you to die how many times and you still keep coming back, you have heart, i'll give you a 10-9:rofl. There's no strict criteria of how to score a 10-8 so whichever way i do it is right, so i win. And
for the record my point was not that you get 9 points for your heart, it was that you get the 9 for not going down, and that is still acceptable, it happens all the time where a judge gives 10-9 and his fellow judge gives 10-8, and the judge who gave 10-9 is not wrong.

When you have kids they are going to love the Fritzl ****, now die

 

i'll ask ******s like teeto a question that will either make them see sense, or show what imbeciles they really are:


r1 - fighter 1 lands 20 punches, fighter 2 lands 15, A jabs better and closes round better

r2 - fighter 1 lands 20 punches, fighter 2 lands 15, A jabs better and closes round better

r3 - fighter 1 lands 20 punches, fighter 2 lands 15, A jabs better and closes round better

r4 - fighter 1 lands 20 punches, fighter 2 lands 15, A jabs better and closes round better

r5 - fighter 1 lands 20 punches, fighter 2 lands 15, A jabs better and closes round better

r6 - fighter 1 lands 20 punches, fighter 2 lands 15, A jabs better and closes round better

r7 - fighter 2 lands 70 punches, fighter 1 lands 5, ultra-dominant beatdown

r8 - fighter 2 lands 70 punches, fighter 1 lands 5, ultra-dominant beatdown

r9 - fighter 2 lands 70 punches, fighter 1 lands 5, ultra-dominant beatdown
(fighter 1 gets a bad cut caused by a punch)

r10 - fighter 2 lands 70 punches, fighter 1 lands 5, ultra-dominant beatdown
(referee comes to fighter 1 corner to see if he is OK to continue)

r11 - fighter 2 lands 70 punches, fighter 1 lands 5, ultra-dominant beatdown
(doctor & referee comes to fighter 1 corner to see if he is OK to continue)

r12 - fighter 2 lands 70 punches, fighter 1 lands 5, ultra-dominant beatdown, fighter 1 holding on for dear life, getting chased around the ring



final punch stats:

fighter 1 - 150 landed
fighter 2 - 510 landed


ranking rounds 1-12 by how dominant to how close they were:

12 (fighter 2) - most dominant/one-sided
11 (fighter 2)
10 (fighter 2)
9 (fighter 2)
8 (fighter 2)
7 (fighter 2)
6 (fighter 1)
5 (fighter 1)
4 (fighter 1)
3 (fighter 1)
2 (fighter 1)
1 (fighter 1)



and you think that the scoring principles should be changed to eliminate 10-8s so that this fight would be scored 114-114???



sorry, but you're a brainless hermaphrodite then...

 

I'm not even reading it, refer to my original post, yes if the fighter doesn't go down i score it 10-9. If a fighter hustles his way to a close win of a round in my judgement then he deserves to win a round just the same as a guy who beats his opponent up. Yes, that's how i do it.

So let me ask you this then dickhead-

Round one- fighter A beats the **** out of fighter B, there is no knockdown, you would give this round 10-8, i would give it 10-9

Round two- Fighter B beats the **** out of fighter A and drops him, i would give this round 10-8, you would as well.

So after the first two rounds, your card shows the knockdown to be irrelevant, whereas mine reflects that fighter B dropped his man. Your card would be all even, mine would show a one point advantage for fighter B, because of the knockdown, which is WHAT THE 10-8 WAS ALL ABOUT WHEN IT WAS CREATED. Owned

I wouldn't have minded debating this with you properly but seen as though you've been a **** you can **** off and bum your dad or some **** now, and die while your at it.

 

what a ****ing pussyass ducker of a *****, scared to confront the truth.


i think you should also buy a thesaurus when you're buying that dictionary ******-boy, so you can think of something else to say other than "die" when you're getting ****ed up by someone elses' logic :smoke:smoke:smoke

 

teeto is a ducker ***** terrified to face this post. :smoke:smoke:smoke

 

Hahaha, you haven't even read my **** properly from the start. I haven't said 10-8's should be eliminated once, i said that i personally only give them if there is a knockdown and i don't agree with judges giving them when there has been no knockdown (i don't know how old you are but that never used to happen by the way). 10-8 was only given if you scored a kd, the introduction of 10-8 without a kd came later. My point is that the original 10 point must system is better and i have just showed you why. In the scenario that i outlined, the kd would be irrelevant on your card, but relevant on mine.

There's nothing for me to duck, I don't want to get rid of 10-8's, i just think it is better to give them only when there is a kd. And yes, the fight you gave as an example is one i would score a draw, i would not be wrong for doing so. It would simply be a fight which would be described as one in which the scorecard did not reflect the nature of the fight. They happen all the time.

It seems that you think boxing is all about ****ing up the opponent physically, 'if you land a thousand punches without a kd it should be 10-8'. Well what about the other ways in which you can completely outclass your opponent? What about generalship? If i stand in the middle fo the ring and step around you jabbing cleanly and not receiving anything in return, totally embarrassing you in front of the world, but don't do much damage phsyically, should it be 10-8? No. So why should it be 10-8 if i batter you around the ring (only one of multiple ways to win a fight) without a kd? I'll tell you why, because the emphasis is being put on the tear up and not the technician at work.

Anyway, answer my 2 round scenario now, i've given you a full blooded answer there. I know 10-8's are given without a kd, i just don't agree with it, and it is totally up to the judge to do so by the way, so if i was a judge and didn't give 10-8 for a one sided brutal round without a kd it would be perfectly accpeted, it is not a must. It is a must however to give 10-8 if there is a kd, which is what i am happy with.

 

look at me clowning with this slimy turd, who is so emotional that a post calling him a ducker brings him crawling out from underneath his rock..


so you think...


- fighter 1 beats the living **** out of fighter 2, chasing him round the ring, landing 70 punches to 5 punches, having people screaming to stop the fight as fighter 2 holds on for dear life

should be a 10-9... atsch


but,


- in the middle of an even, uneventful round fighter 2 scores a flash KD that was more to do with balance than anything else (like hopkins-tarver kd or jones-toney kd), and then the round resumes its very even course of action til the bell rings,

and this should be a 10-8... atsch




Yes oh yes, this guy's a turd-tastic turd who is a regular boxing genius - :nut :smoke :nut :smoke

 

It doesn't matter what we think, the way i like uses a structure, the other way uses judgement, which can be corrupted. I didn't say **** about a flash kd, i said if i beat the **** out of you and score a kd it should be scored 10-8. Anyway, you're trying to play with me now, but your mum loves the scouse sausage.

 

your point of view is ****, and you've been embarrassed.

either re-think your shitty position on this issue, or continue to be a ****ing mongtard ripe for a roasting whenever this issue comes up.


:smoke

 

No i destroyed you, just like Bam Bam Bigalow is destroying your mums womb now!!!!!!!!!!

 

teeto is a ducker-***** terrified to face this post: :deal

give him time to go get his thesaurus so he can make sure he spells "die" properly in his comeback

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

look at sweaty-shitbag teeto talking about wombs because he is terrified of an argument he can't cope with: