9-9 & 10-10 rounds

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by JSpizz, Jun 17, 2021.

Do you score 10-10 rounds

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,433
    9,586
    Jun 25, 2014
    Well, if you're scoring at home, you can give them 3 points each, or 17 points each, or give them both "heart shapes" or any symbol you like.

    If you are a judge scoring on the 10-point-must system, you don't hand out 9-9 rounds unless someone won a round 10-9, and then the referee told you to deduct a point from the winner of the round's card for a foul.

    10-10 rounds are even rounds.

    9-9 rounds represent one fighter winning a round but having a point deducted for fouling.

    You can either follow the scoring criteria or not when watching at home. Doesn't matter.
     
  2. shadow111

    shadow111 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,904
    4,116
    Aug 1, 2012
    Or you can score the match the old fashioned way, "7-3 & 2 even" or "5-3 & 4 even" or "8-1 & 3 even. Then you don't have to decide whether or not to give a 9-9 or a 10-10 or how much you award a knockdown to. I think a lot of the reason why the 10 point must system was created is in the old fashioned way, judges had to factor in the knockdowns themselves when scoring a round, although there were no automatic points for knockdowns there were still a big part of who won the round in the judges mind. Knockdowns became much rarer as fighter technique progressed and number of rounds decreased, there was a push to give automatic points for knockdowns as part of the scoring system.

    On this very form, a large chunk of posters score the old fashioned way and just say "this guy won rounds 8 rounds to 4" or "it was a draw 6 rounds to 6". But rarely do we see it written like scores were announced in the old days in the old fashioned way with even rounds listed for example "6 rounds to 4 and 2 even" rather than assigning points for each round. In the old fashioned way, each round was worth the same number of possible points (1) that a fighter could win a round by regardless of if there was a knockdown in that round or not, but at the same time, if there wasn't a knockdown in the round, there was a much higher % that a judge would score it even than to do so it really was a completely different way to score than what we see today, and many people complain about the judging so often, we must consider the old fashioned way. So a knockdown still carried a lot of weight in the old fashioned system because if it was a close round a knockdown would be the difference to win a fighter the round. If you really come to think of it, the old fashioned system had less flaws and in many cases was more accurate than the 10 point must system.
     
    MagicE and chacal like this.
  3. Sap1en

    Sap1en Active Member Full Member

    725
    685
    Dec 1, 2020
    Fair response but I think that 10-10 still is a draw round. If neither fighter does enough to steal the round neither should have the round taken from them rather than both. Maybe you are right but I think 10-10 simplifies things.
     
  4. sasto

    sasto Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,074
    4,397
    Aug 5, 2020
    Or a 10-10 round with a deduction on both sides!

    Which is why I think the terminology is a little silly because there are multiple ways for a round to end with the net effect being neither fighter's score increasing by 10 (at least the way British judges do it).
     
  5. shadow111

    shadow111 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,904
    4,116
    Aug 1, 2012
    Official judges have to award deductions based on the referee's decisions. But fan scorecards can give as many deductions as you want. As a fan scorer I can score it 10-10 to satisfy the 10 point must then deduct each fighter 1 point for stalling and not engaging enough or not landing enough punches and end up with a score of 9-9. Or if there's too much holding I can deduct bother fighters a point and score it 9-9. If you look at a round not in terms of who won it as the starting point but as a round that you are choosing how much points to give to each fighter, another words how would you rate each fighters's performance in a round. If it's a 10, that means they did perfect, landed a a lot of clean shots didn't get hit much, etc.

    If you look at it that way, if it was a lackluster round where both fighters missed a lot of punches, you can give each fighter 9 instead of 10 for whatever reasons you think they deserved one less point. And in this case, fighters would score higher or lower in a match depending on how they actually performed in all the rounds. As it stands, the focus is only on which fighter win a round, with no consideration over how close each round was. If one fighter dominates a round then the other fighter barely edges the next round, should it really be even on the scores. In reality fighter A could be winning if the 2nd round was scored even. This is a problem we have with the current "somebody has to win every round" way of scoring and it should be no wonder why there's so many judging controversies and fans screaming robbery after every decision under this scoring system. The current scoring system is not only the 10 point must season, but it's also the 10 point must systm with judges being told to choose a winner in every round. That creates more inaccurate scoring as it should be part of the judges job to score rounds on a scale that makes sense to them rather than having a scale imposed on them.
     
    sasto likes this.
  6. Bustajay

    Bustajay Feel the Steel/Balls Deep Full Member

    28,133
    7,353
    Dec 9, 2012
    @IntentionalButt
    Okay time to break down the scoring...You know how each fighters starts with 10 points each round:risas3::risas3:
     
  7. Dempsey Gibbons

    Dempsey Gibbons Member Full Member

    271
    193
    Jun 25, 2005
    10-9 to the winner of a round even if he never lands a single punch.

    Round 1 of Haye vs Harrison saw neither fighter land a punch but Haye danced around nicer. :D
     
  8. Pugilist Specialist

    Pugilist Specialist Active Member banned Full Member

    523
    510
    Apr 13, 2020
    Judges should use 10-10 rounds. In today’s boxing game fighters often spend whole rounds just posing and doing literally nothing to feel each other out. It’s idiotic to score a 10-9 round unless there is action in the round and a clear winner
     
  9. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,433
    9,586
    Jun 25, 2014
    What a terrible time in the division. A guy who got stopped by Tony Bellew and Carl Thompson defending a heavyweight belt against a guy who got beat by Michael Sprott and Martin Rogan.
     
  10. Wizbit1013

    Wizbit1013 The Original 101.3 Full Member

    7,299
    8,669
    Mar 17, 2018
    Use the above losses in context

    1st one he was Green and gassed out

    2nd he was shot to bits

    Jeez, your guy made defences against Szpilka and Duhaupas yet you wanna knock others reigns lol
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2021
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  11. Shempz

    Shempz Active Member Full Member

    633
    453
    Mar 10, 2014
    10-10 rounds are perfectly fine in my opinion, and I'd rather score a round 10-10 than 10-9 to one of the fighters just because I have to when I don't think either fighter won the round.
     
  12. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft 'Snarky Little Gobshite' - IntentionalButt Full Member

    23,092
    34,391
    Mar 3, 2019
    You're definitely right, but prime Thompson beats any Haye. People forget that the CAT was at least 42 in that fight, and was an OLD 42. He had been in war after war.
     
    Wizbit1013 likes this.
  13. Wizbit1013

    Wizbit1013 The Original 101.3 Full Member

    7,299
    8,669
    Mar 17, 2018
    Probably right, but Haye of the unified period has a much better chance than BBC Grandstand Haye