A knockdown can be evened out by simply winning a round?

Ok, thanks. Case closed.

 

Thankyou.......I've seen judges score like that many times......

If the fighter clearly winning a round is knockdown, a judge may deem it fit to score the round even, and in a 10 point must system, thats a 10-10 score for that round.



Every rulesbook on the matter I've ever read does'nt make itself clear on the matter of how a judge should proceed to score a round when a fighter clearly wins the round but is knockdown in the process.
......and I've seen judges score such rounds 10-10, 10-9, and imo ridiculously 10-8 in instances where a fighter dominates a round but is knockdown in flashknockdown fashion.

The rules leave the scoring on such matters to the discretion of the judges, which I believe is ridiculous.


Why on earth dont they just put the rulebooks to note for a judge to score a round as they would normally do, and then deduct a point for each knockdown is beyond me......
......if they did it this way, it would take away possible bias scoring by judges.


Why do three judges score a round like that of Holyfield-Moorer three different ways? (not that it happened in this fight, but it could happen.....one judge could score 10-10, another 10-9, and the third 10-8.
.........its because the rulebooks does'nt make itself clear on how such a round should be scored.

Put it in the rulebooks......score the round without reference to knockdowns, and then deduct a point for each knockdown......its a simple and fair way all around to score a round.

 

knocking down the other guy is a huge edge and the guy getting knocked down has to absolutely dominate the rest of the round (before and after the knockdown) to get out with a 10-9 rather than 10-8 against him

 

I've been in threads debating this very point many times throughout my years at ESB.......you wont find any rulebook that has a clear and concise explanation on how a judge should proceed to score a round when the fighter winning the round is knockdown.......

......and the alphabet groups that put out these rules quite frankly dont want to make the rules clear......they themselves claim that such situations are to the discretion of the judges, and they do that because what they really want is for them to have leeway for them to work there dishonesty and side for the fighter that is the bigger name, thus will make more money for the sport. (Which benefits the alphabet's group pockets)

For instance......if Sugar Ray Leonard was fighting say Wilfred Benitez........if Leonard were to score a knockdown on Benitez in a round he was losing, I'm certain that on orginizaton like the WBA would want the round scored 10-8 Leonard......

If the situation were reversed and it was Benitez who scored a knockdown in a round he was losing, the same WBA would likely be happier that round be scored 10-9 or even 10-10.

There is a reason why the rulebooks leave it to the discretion of the judges.......and thats because orginizations like the WBA, WBC, IBF, etc.......want the judges to have that leeway so that they can work their dishonesty that more often than not would benefit these same alphabet groups.



For Gods sake......how fairer and simpler than to make the rules state that a judge should score a round as they would without knockdowns, and then at the end of the round deduct 1 point for every knockdown occured?

In the case of the 3rd round of Pacquiao-Cotto, if a judge thought Pacquiao the winner of the round, 10-8 Pacquiao.

If the judge felt Cotto won it, an even round, 10-10 or 9-9, it does'nt really matter as long as its even.

If the judge felt that the round was even not taking the knockdown into effect.......well the knockdown then makes it 10-9 Pacquiao.





Btw, Jim Lampley is a complete bafoon..........he talks up and cheerleads on how a round should be scored according to which fighter he favors to win.......
......for example, when Pacquiao scored the knockdown, he went to bat for Cotto and made a case that the round could be scored even.......

......but I remember very vividly round 10 of JMM vs MAB, and JMM battering Barrera from pillar to post and totally battering MAB in that round.

MAB then scores a flash knockdown of JMM that Jay Nady missed.........Lampley then went bonkers over Nady missing the call and laid claim that Nady had taken a 10-8 round away from MAB.

How the heck can Lampley claim Cotto could have an even round against Pacquiao, but claim that MAB was robbed of a 10-8 round that JMM dominated much more heavily than Cotto had done vs Pacquiao.

The disparity of the round in JMM-MAB was much wider than the disparity of the round of Pac-Cotto, yet Lampley was in a hissy fit that MAB was being deprived of a 10-8 round!atsch:-(

 

You can win the round you were knocked down in, but while it will add up to a 9-9 round there is really nothing scored as 9-9 under the 10 pt must. That means the winner “must” be awarded 10 pts. The deduction comes after the scoring

So fighter A gets KD’d but dominates fighter B the remainder of the round. It would generally be scored
A 10 (-1)
B 9 (or 8 depending on level of domination...but highly unlikely)

So it looks like and adds up to 9-9 but in reality it is still 10 with the point deducted from 10.