Does a knockdown automatically mean a 10-8 round?

A knockdown is not a points deduction, it's part of the normal scoring.

If each fighter knocks his opponent down once in a round the round would not be scored 9 - 9 or 9 - 8.

Unless the referee has deducted points from the fighter who is judged to have won the round, at least one of the fighters should score 10.

 

Thats incorrect mate. Although you see plenty of people scoring this way (lots of 9-9 cards for Cotto-Clottey, some even from journos who you would think would know better) its the wrong way to do it.

 

This content is protected

 

Forgive me for being incorrect then, sorry.

However, the way I outlined makes MUCH more sense than the proposed other ways. Winning a round based on a good/well timed/lucky shot, when you opponent has been taking you to school for 2 minutes and 45 seconds, is flat out stupid.

It completely invalidates the work fighters put in; it makes the scoring more based on knockdowns, not boxing as a whole, seeing as youre going in with the mentality that you can lose 95% of the fight, but as long as you knock your opponent down in at least half the rounds youre fine.

 

Obviously the correct way doesn't HAVE to give results that are any different to how you'd like to score it. In the Cotto-Clottey round that you want to score 9-9 a judge is free to give a 10-10 if he thinks Clottey has done enough to in the round to off-set the flash knockdown. Effectively the same thing.

Its not about what scoring system you use, its about how you interpret the round and how much weight you give the knockdown when balanced against the other work done in the round.

 

Terry O'Connor apart, I've always believed that a knockdown guarantees the round for the man who scored the knockdown, regardless of how the rest of the round went and even if it is a 'flash' knockdown. The 10-point 'must' system was set up primarily to acknowledge knockdowns.
I cannot think of an example where a boxer who scored a knockdown did not win the round.

 

Thats how I see it, with a knockdown (barring something exceptional) the other boxer is effectively fighting to try and turn a 10-8 into a 10-9. (assuming he doesn't knock the other guy down himself of course)

 

No offence to you at all, but this is exactly the way it shouldn't be. When scoring a round containing a knockdown, the judges should score it as they would have without the KD, then deduct a point from the fighter who was floored (with the proviso that at least one fighter must get 10 points normally, so if a fighter was winning the round but gets KD, that would make it 9-9 but it would be scored 10-10 as it's 10 point must).

This is only fair really, it's not right that a fighter such as Cotto should get in effect a 3 round swing for landing a stiff jab on an off-balance opponent). However, judges these days tend to take it that any fighter who floors his opponent automatically gets a 10-8. All wrong if you ask me and partly responsible for so many hooky decisions, but it's up to the governing bodies to issue clarification statements and tell the judges if they are going wrong.

 

I agree totally with your last paragraph. However, my interpretation was that the above situation (which is similar to the Cotto-Clottey first round) would (or should) be scored 10-10. I always understood that 9-9 rounds could only be scored on account of a point deduction rather than a knockdown (so if a fighter was winning a round but got a point deducted, it would be scored 9-9. but if he was winning then got KD it would be 10-10). I think it is a good point you raise and one which needs to be clarified, I have a feeling it gets looked at different ways depending on the boxing commission which has jurisdiction.

 

[quote="TKO";4969290]No offence to you at all, but this is exactly the way it shouldn't be. When scoring a round containing a knockdown, the judges should score it as they would have without the KD, then deduct a point from the fighter who was floored (with the proviso that at least one fighter must get 10 points normally, so if a fighter was winning the round but gets KD, that would make it 9-9 but it would be scored 10-10 as it's 10 point must).

This is only fair really, it's not right that a fighter such as Cotto should get in effect a 3 round swing for landing a stiff jab on an off-balance opponent). However, judges these days tend to take it that any fighter who floors his opponent automatically gets a 10-8. All wrong if you ask me and partly responsible for so many hooky decisions, but it's up to the governing bodies to issue clarification statements and tell the judges if they are going wrong.[/quote]

I've read (and I've no idea if this is correct:deal) that to reward knockdowns the first knockdown for each boxer scores 2 points and subsequent KDs 1 point.

So a round with only one knockdown sees the boxer lose 2 points, if he then has the better of the round he can get a point awarded back to make it 10-9.

 

I've always had it down as one point for a KD full stop. If a fighter is winning a round and scores a KD you don't usually see it scored 10-7, unless he really is beating the s*@t out of his opponent before and after the KD (Froch-Taylor round 12 could have been an example had it got that far). It's only really when the fighter who is winning the round gets KD that the confusion tends to arise.

 

I scored Cotto v Clottey round 10 - 9 iirc.

The only round I recall seeing where I scored in 10 - 10 despite a knockdown was Cunningham v Adamek. But in that case Cunningham was doing enough for a 10 - 8 round himself before being knocked down right at the end of the round.

 

Yes, you and Gaz are quite right. I've just been browsing through a few scorecards and Meldrick Taylor, for example, was floored in the first round by Glenwood Brown and one of the judges made the round 10-10. There are a few other examples. I suppose it makes common sense to award an even round if one fighter dominates the round bar a knockown.

 

This content is protected

 

[quote="TKO";4969290]No offence to you at all, but this is exactly the way it shouldn't be. When scoring a round containing a knockdown, the judges should score it as they would have without the KD, then deduct a point from the fighter who was floored (with the proviso that at least one fighter must get 10 points normally, so if a fighter was winning the round but gets KD, that would make it 9-9 but it would be scored 10-10 as it's 10 point must).

This is only fair really, it's not right that a fighter such as Cotto should get in effect a 3 round swing for landing a stiff jab on an off-balance opponent). However, judges these days tend to take it that any fighter who floors his opponent automatically gets a 10-8. All wrong if you ask me and partly responsible for so many hooky decisions, but it's up to the governing bodies to issue clarification statements and tell the judges if they are going wrong.[/quote]

I don't disagree with you that it's not quite right. But that's how i thought it worked - fighter scoring a knockdown automatically wins the round 10-8.

Does anyone actually know the origin of the 10-9 system?

In my mind it would make more sense to give the fighter winning the round a point, with a point awarded for each knockdown. that would have made the Cotto/Clottey 1st round 1-1, which seems a lot fairer.