In the ye olde days it happened much more often. Just take the classic 'Rumble in the Jungle' between 'my man' George Foreman and Muhammad Ali. After 7 rounds it was 66-69 ( This content is protected ), 67-70 ( This content is protected ) and 66-68 ( This content is protected ). Saying you need to pick a winner is b*ll. If the round is even it's even, totally unfair to give it to one guy just because you like the color of his trunks better. :huh
yeah, or you get other bull**** reasons such as "if it's close always give it to the champion" or even if neither fighter lands a damn punch and people choose to give the round to the busier fighter just because he hit thin air more often.
negative. Points from fouls are deducted after the round is scored. For example, all three judges scored round 3 of Cotto vs Judah 9-9.
I'm amazed this debate is still going on. By now everyone should be thoroughly educated and near experts on the topic. Why is there still confusion as to how to score rounds? We really do have some pig-****-thick posters in this forum.
Yep, gotta love this one... just picking it up where we left it. With all arguments over again. sp550i (the TS) is back, that's why!
Good to see that despite the 15 pages of explanations and ridicule, people are still prepared to stick there head in and be completely and utterly wrong. Refreshing.
I guess I shouldn't have used this thread as an example of his idiocy, but his other thread was even worse, if that is possible. I've put this ugly little troll on my iList.
Curious. How many people are on that list? Is there a max amount of people you can put on that list Hermit?
There are some on here that NEVER talk boxing. Just one or two lines of insults at a time. Why bother with them?
10-10 rounds were more common before, you see quite a bit of 10-10 rounds in big fights then (Hagler-Duran, Leonard-Duran, Duran-Moore, Leonard-Kalule, Leonard-Benitez, Holmes-Spinks, etc...). Nowadays it's not as common but still you see it here and there. Williams-Martinez for example.