Hopkins - Pascal, Scorecard and thoughts on the fight.

Its not "complex" mate. If you thought Hops was clearly winning the 1st (as the guy I'd replied to in my post did) and then got KD'd then you should feel free to score it 10-9 Pascal.

If you didn't think Hops was winning the first round then fair enough (I gave a 10-8 for the 3rd) but don't penalise a fighter 3 points for a flash knockdown.

 

Yeah, I see your point. But I think it does create complexity when there are degrees of a knockdown. For me, a knockdown is a knockdown - it wins a round. If a fighter is beating the utter hell out of his opponent and then gets caught for a flash knockdown, then I'd be totally up for a 10-9. Otherwise, I try and keep it simple.

But as Hugh Mcillvaney put it, if that's the case for a knockdown, then surely the dominance of a fighter in a round without knockdowns should count too.

In the case of Leonard-Hagler he felt the damage Hagler did deserved more credit. In Leonard rounds it was quick, light shots. In Hagler rounds he was banging Ray around. But both were 10-9.

So, if you don't diversify for a round in general, I'm not sure you can do the same for knockdowns. Just my weird view on it. But it's not like the commissions will ever ratify standardised scoring. Subjective interpretation is the best we'll get.

 

While I don't disagree with the logic, and I don't think it's complex either, my issue is that 10-8 for a KD round - regardless of who was winning the round - seemed to be accepted practice for years.

When did that change?

 

Duane Ford wrote an article about it a few years ago. Chuck Giampa sometimes writes pieces for The Ring about controversial decisions. He did a good piece on round three of Cotto-Pacquiao about why it would be appropriate to score that 10-9 for Pac.

But considering many of the judges struggle to score even clear rounds the right way, I'm always wary of giving them wiggle room to rip fighters off.

 

It hasn't changed. Its never been an automatic 10-8 round for a KD. Just like you can score a 10-8 for a round with no KDs in, I've see that disputed on here recently but thats also incorrect.

 

Round 1: Pascal 10-8
Round 2: Pascal 10-9
Round 3: Pascal 10-8
Round 4: Hopkins 10-9
Round 5: Hopkins 10-9
Round 6: Hopkins 10-9
Round 7: Hopkins 10-9
Round 8: Hopkins 10-9
Round 9: Hopkins 10-9
Round 10: Even 10-10
Round 11: Hopkins 10-9
Round 12: Hopkins 10-9

Hopkins 115 - 112 Pascal

I could have scored the 5th and the 8th even, and could have given Hopkins the 10th - apart from that I'm pretty happy with the clearness of the rounds in the scoring.

 

Fair comment on the Hagler-Leonard fight thats the problem of having winning rounds as 10-9s rather than an issue with how to score knockdowns.

I really don't get the simple vs. complex issue at all though....its not hard!!!

have you read that piece I linked to? Even if you don't agree the 3 articles in that series make good reading.

 

Pretty close to how I had it, gave the 10th to Hopkins and one of the KD rounds 10-9.

After the 4th, I think their is only a case for one Pascal round. So if you score two 10-8s and then gave Pascal one round after 4 it still comes out 114-112 Hopkins.

I can not see a Pascal win or a draw for this fight.

Here's how the judgees actually had it...

This content is protected

 

On the topic of 10-9 KD rounds:

 

A bit strange that the judge who actually had Hopkins winning the fight gave Pascal the ninth round. I thought that was a pretty clear Hopkins round.

 

That is also my understanding of the scoring system. A KD just makes it easier for a judge to score a 10-8 than it would be if a fighter was just very dominant. Judges, like everyone else, like to cover their arse and dominance demonstrated by a KD is harder to dispute.

 

I like Jean and i like Nard. I didn't want to make a pick because of fact Nard's a hustler and i had a feeling he played it on a bit against Jones (the breathing and not wanting to fight at a pace) i think he wanted people to believe that old father time had caught up.

Last night i witnessed greatness, sorry a 45 year old man outworking and bullying a 28 year old athlete and let's make no bones about it Pascal is a fine champion but Nard took him to hell and back last night.

After the early onslaught it would of been easy for any fighter to fold or go into shell but somehow B-Hop worked out the style of Pascal and timed him and then gained control and after the early rounds i couldn't really give Pascal any rounds.

I didn't score the fight but round after round i enjoyed watching the Executioner at work. He's truly special people and we should cherish his greatness no matter how much of a idiot he is and how he's fought in the past he's given me some of the best nights in boxing.

As i said i didn't score the fight but after them early rounds i can't hardly remember giving Pascal a round. He fought like a 45 year old man in there and Hopkins adapted in there to marvelous effect and for me took Pascal's heart and beat him.

One bodyshot i think in round 11 in the pocket just by the ropes. Little short uppercut to stomach near on lifted Pascal off canvas.

I like Pascal and hope he can push on but i've noticed twice now when someone works him out and works his body and the jab he just mentally crumbles and backs off and retreats and surrenders the advantage.

I just had a feeling they would give a draw but i think if i scored it..it would of went to Hopkins.

 

had it 114-113 hopkins and i was trying to be slighty biased to pascal, what with it being in canada and that.

i also gave both rounds 1 & 3 10-8

 

Originally Posted by Ring

The criteria for scoring a knock down is not based on the premise that the fighter who scores the knockdown automatically is awarded a 10-8. The correct criteria that is taught by Duane Ford in his ABC certification classes for boxing judges is:

If Fighter A is winning the round and scores a knockdown and continues to win the round after the knockdown, then Fighter A is awarded the round 10-8. However, if Fighter A is winning the round and gets knocked down by Fighter B, then Fighter B is awarded the round 10-9. The key is: Which fighter won the round without the knockdown? Thus, most fans and TV commentators are incorrect in automatically scoring a 10-8 round for a fighter who scores a knock down without taking into consideration who won the round without the knock down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"....takes a bow"

 

:good