Does a knockdown automatically mean a 10-8 round?

What about the 10 points must system ???:?

 

Indeed. See the Sven Ottke versus Robin Reid fight. Reid knocked down Ottke with a clear punch, ref ruled a slip, Reid deducted a point for an "infringement", Ottke wins 10-8. A four point spread there.

 

Gaz already explained it to me

 

OK no problem Gaz.

 

Gaz's explanation blows my scoring of Cotto vs Clottey out of the window then..... I scored round one 9-9!

 

excuse my naivety but how long has this system been in place

 

It shouldn't, it's supposed to mean the knocked down fighter loses a point which should mean it's possible for them to get a 9-10 or even an even round. However, these days a lot of judges apply far too liberal a use of 10-8 rounds and automatically score them against any fighter who gets knocked down. A prime example was the 10-8 given to Roy Jones for his "clothesline" knockdown of Calzaghe and I think at least 1 or 2 of the judges gave a 10-8 to Barrera against Marquez in the seventh even though he had been having the worst of the rest of the round.

 

As Gaz explains, the 10-point 'must' system means just that - a round 'must' be scored 10-something. The only circumstance a 9-9 round occurs is when a fighter, who would have won the round 10-9, has a point deducted. If that fighter scored a knockdown in the same round, the score would change from 10-8 in his favour to 9-8. There are compexities, then. If Muhammad Ali beat the hell out of Joe Frazier for two minutes and 58 seconds of a round but then suffered a flash knockdown, the round would not necessarily be scored 10-8 to Frazier but probably 10-9.
The system essentially stems from Wilfred Benitez's controversial 10-round decision over Bruce Curry in 1977 at Madison Square Garden, a fight that took place under the old 'rounds' scoring system. Curry floored Benitez three times in the fight (including one knockdown when he sent Wilfred sprawling through the ropes) but could only be given the round as a reward for his big-punching exploits. Benitez was given more rounds by merely edging them (when he was basically running for his life).
Judges now have the licence to reward knockdowns and big rounds as they could never do under the old 'rounds' scoring system. Think of the huge first round Yvon Durelle had against Archie Moore back in 1958, when Moore was down three times and wobbled back to his corner. The most Durelle could be awarded was the round itself. Compare that to Jorge Paez scoring three knockdowns in the 15th and final round against Calvin Grove for the IBF featherweight title in 1988. The scores he picked up in that final round were two of 10-7 snd one of 10-6. It enabled Paez to nick the title with a majority decision.
In Moore's time, Grove would have retained his title.
Even if a fighter has a big round but doesn't score a knockdowns, he can still be rewarded with a 10-8 round. Canadian judge, Guy Jutras, gave Marvin Hagler a 10-8 round against Roberto Duran in 1983 in round six. There was no knockdown in the round and the two other judges scored 10-9 to Hagler. The Canadian's score was perhaps a bit dodgy but in the end it boils down to dominance. Sugar Ray Leonard, for example, poured it on in the final round of his rematch with Thomas Hearns in 1989 after being floored in the 11th (and losing it 10-8 on all three cards, as standard). He didn't floor Hearns in that final round but one judge still made it 10-8 for Leonard, which enabled him to salvage a draw. Was that scandalous? Not at all. The other two judges, by the way, had it 10-9 for Leonard.
There are the inevitable controversies. 'Irish' Micky Ward picked up a 10-7 round in the ninth against Arturo Gatti in their first classic when he scored only one knockdown in the round with a left hook to the body. Gatti came back well from the knockdown and the judge involved, Dick Flaherty, hailed from Micky's home state of Massachusetts. A 10-8 round would have made the fight a deserving draw.

 

:roll:

 

:smoke:smoke:smoke

1st round of Cotto Clottey 10-9 :deal

 

Clottey was winning the round but suffered a flash knochdown caused by a Cotto jab towards the end of it.

I scored that round 10-9 Cotto (2 points off Clottey for the KD and 1 back on for winning the round) but over on the GF they were scoring it 9-9 or 9-8!!! Interestingly all 3 judges scored the round 10-8 Cotto (a Puerto Rican fighting in New York)!!!

Even on a few of the boxing websites you still see articles with 9-9 cards mentioned when theres been no fouls.....

 

You mean correctly scored 10-9 surely?

 

I scored that round 10-8 cause of the knockdown, and the final result 114-112 to Cotto.

Up to the knockdown I had Clottey winning the round, so the flash knockdown gave a 3 point swing and resulted in Cotto winning the fight.

That's sport at the top for you, all about the tiniest margins.

 

That's kinda what I go with, 10 points for someone, except I do tend to reward fighters for a knockdown.

For instance, Holyfield-Moorer I round 2. Moorer pretty much bosses the round, then right at the end he gets caught with a 1-2 combo and drops to a knee. He's up quickly, but it's still a KD. A round I would've given Moorer 10-9 now become's a 8-10, in Holyfield's favour. Yes Moorer was winning the round but like I say, credit to Holyfield for finding the right punches to inflict that knockdown...and penalty to Moorer for losing control in a situation he was in charge of. I think knockdowns should be rewarded the most.

As it happened, one of the judges scored that round 10-10 so go figure!

Fouls of course are straight deductions. If someone knocks his opponent down three times but gets two points docked then it's an 8-6 round.

 

Lots of people using different logic to each other here.

My understanding is the '10 point must' system is being misinterpreted; one fighter MUST be awarded 10 points, yes, but this is BEFORE deductions. There is no '2 points off, one back on" or anything.

Boxer A clearly wins a round against boxer B, but suffers a flash knockdown in the closing seconds.

Boxer A is awarded 10 for winning the round (as it was a flash KD it wasnt enough for B to be awarded the 10 for taking the round from his opponent).

Therefore B is awarded 9.

HOWEVER, deductions are now made: that is, one taken off boxer A.

So it is a 9-9 round.



To be honest it's absolute bull**** if you are handily owning a round, cruising to a 10-9. Then you accidently walk into a shot off balance (ala Cotto vs Clottey) and instantly its a 10-8 in favour of your opponent. That makes no sense AT ALL.