How to score knockdowns that aren't really knockdowns

I just sat and watched Corrales - Casemayor III, scoring it 114-114. I scored the fifth, in which Corrales was wrongly awarded a knockdown, 10-8. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, knockdowns count for a lot in boxing. I never score rounds 10-8 unless a guy has been on his backside, no matter the beating he takes, see Maidana - Khan round 10. I always score a round 10-8 if a guy goes down, unless he gets up and scores his own knockdown. Kinda the way I think it ought to be given my contention that knockdowns are important. Second, the referee is the boss and he said it was a knockdown. Judges are not arbiters of what are and are not knockdowns; that responsibility lies solely with the referee. Of course, the problem with this is that rounds are unfairly scored due to a mistake on the part of the referee. The co-commentator said he scored the round 10-9 to Corrales, but that's with the aid of TV and, in my eyes, is contrary to the rules.

This was also something that came up relatively recently in the Hopkins - Pascal fight, where questionable refereeing decisions affected the scoring and, therefore, the result. So what do we do about this? Should judges be able to use their discretion and effectively be allowed to overturn what they perceive as wrongly awarded knockdowns? How far do you extend this? To point deductions? How feasible would it be for judges to view replays between rounds of contentious knockdowns so they can make their own minds up?

Kind of a tough one, I think...

 

Ha, no-one wanted to talk about this did they?

I could head to the main part of the forum and start a thread asking who is better between Pacquiao and Mayweather and get 500 replies by the time I come back from the toilet...

 

I'm guessing that people think that talking to someone who thinks round 10 of Khan-Maidana was only a 10-9 round is probably a waste of time...

:nut

 

Why, was there a knockdown I missed? The guy deserves 10-9 because he stayed on his feet under a relentless assault. Maidana, likewise, did not deserve 10-8 becasue he didn't knock the guy down. KNOCKDOWNS COUNT.

 

If he is so dominant in the round and completely controls the round with little to no resistence then he deserves a 10-8

 

No offence, but that's a really really dumb way to look at it.


Of course KNOCKDOWNS COUNT, no-one would ever dispute that.


However, BEATDOWNS ALSO COUNT.


Is it fair if:

- In round 1, Fighter A and fighter B fight a competitive round, both land punches throughout, but fighter B lands noticeably more jabs, and closes the round stronger, so the majority of people think he edged it 10-9

- In round 2, Fighter B barely lands a punch the whole round, fighter A wobbles him with his 1st punch, drives him to the ropes, keeps him pinned there, and unleashes various combinations, having B ready to go a few times, and utterly dominating every second of the round, so everyone in the place agrees it was a complete shutdown/beatdown/domination

...but the score is 19-19 after 2 rounds, when one guy has landed much much more punches, and caused far far more damage?

:huh

Obviously not. A fair score would have fighter A ahead, that's why we award 10-8s for beatdown rounds, so the score as accurately as possible reflects what happens in the fight.

 

But fights are scored round by round! 19-19 is EXACTLY the correct score in your scenario, because Fighter B wins round 1 and fighter A wins round 2. Unless there is a knockdown, exactly how they went about winning the rounds is neither here nor there. When was the last time an announcer said 'OK, the judges say it's a draw, but as Fighter A won his six rounds more convincingly, we're giving it to him.' I'd suggest never.

 

I disagree completely.

If one fighter edges 6 rounds by using his jab better in a close and competitive fight,

then the other fighter completely dominates, embarrasses and beats down on him for 6 rounds,

then it's obvious which guy has (a) landed more punches, and (b) caused more damage, and (c) did the far more effective and valuable work over the course.


To be honest though, I'm not going to bother debating the point any further, because (without meaning to be condescending) I am right and you are wrong, because in reality judges do award 10-8 rounds to as accurately as possible reflect how the fight has actually gone inside the ring.

Good luck with your quest to convince people that this is not how things should be! :good

 

Popkins is right.

If a fighter is particularly dominant during the course of a round, hurts him, and beats him from pillar to post throughout the course of that stanza, then that's a clear 10-8 round. And judges have registered that score on more than one occasion.

Judges will also award 10-9 rounds, instead of 10-8, in rounds where fighters have been dropped, because the fighter who scored the kd was dominated in every other part of the round except the point when the kd occurred.

 

But what you are left with is 6-6. A draw. 114-114. The only way to get away from that is by judges either awarding a round to a guy who didn't win it in orde to ensure he's winning overall, or judges awarding 10-8 rounds when they aren't merited. The way you're describing it, why bother with scoring at all? Why not just ask the judges not for scores, but simply for the name of the guy they thought won?

 

You clearly do not understand how boxing is scored in reality.

 

Because each round IS scored individually. Fighter A can be dominated throughout the course of that three minute stanza and suffer a 10-8 loss in the round, but still have banked enough rounds to have earned a win on the cards. That doesn't mean that the 10-8 round was unwarranted.

Basically, what you've described as your scoring system is just as arbitrary than the type of scoring that you're trying to discredit, because it doesn't factor a fighter's dominance during the course of a three minute stanza into the equation.

 

Todays rules could have Ali Fraizer round 11 a 10-8 round in favor for Frazier.

 

Correct on that one.
Round 11,,,10-8 (Clearly a 10-8 round)
Round 15,,,10-8 (If somebody had the balls to pull the trigger, a 10-7)

Round 5,,,,10-8 (It could have been, very close)

On one scorecard, Joe was up in Rounds 11-4-0.
He could have won by 11-points, easy.

 

If the ref rules it a knockdown it is a knockdown eve if you don't agree it is a knockdown. If acording to the rules you have to score the knockdown it is a 10-8 round. You can't change the rules acording to your opinion.