If a boxer completely dominates a round but suffers a KD, how should the round be scored?

Okay, there is too much noise in here, and this has fractured into a bevy of little subplot debates that are just further obfuscating things. First things first, we all need to be on the same page about the fallacy in the OP's premise. @uhd100 originally posited options A-D, with A & C being just categorically flat-out wrong off the bat under the universal rules of scoring modern professional boxing (known as ten point must).

A is never an option. Why? You can't have a "9-9" round (you can have a round functionally be one, if the ref deducts a point for a foul, but not for a knockdown - but even the referee point deduction for a foul is still a 10-9 round within the official column of the judge's score-sheet, with the point deducted in a separate totals column). You do not can cannot ever supersede the impetus of "ten point must" for a knockdown.

C is never an option. Same reason as for "A". One fighter must get a "10" in the individual round's column on the judge's official scoring sheet. You can have the winner of the round only get 9 points over in the separate totals column, only for a deduction for a foul, never for a knockdown. In a round where there are no deductions for a foul, at least one fighter gets ten points, no matter what.

The options should have been presented as:

1. 10-8 Wilder (conventional scoring, the majority of times in this situation)
2. 10-9 Wilder (if you think Fury truly dominated the round, enough to completely offset the knockdown)
3. 10-10 (pretty outrageous, but still technically an option, unlike the first & third options given by uhd; this would be if you felt the round was so dominant in favor of Fury that, minus the knockdown, you would have scored it a 10-8 round for him even without him dropping Wilder)

That's all. Those are the only realistic options, within the rules. Option #1 is the one that 99% of fans and 99% of pro judges are going to agree is correct. A vocal minority could make a case for option #2. The last is really a ludicrously out-there choice, but still, a judge would not be in violation of the rules if they scored it thus (just showing very poor subjective judgment). There is no latitude for a pro judge to score a round (again, within the individual round's base scoring column) as 9-9 or 9-8. Zero. They do not have that option, ever. The job isn't subjective to quite that degree. They can't just write in whatever they want. You can't submit a round score of "50 kajilleon googleplex to negative four", because that's nonsense. Likewise, a 9-9 or 9-8 round is nonsense. Gobbledygook. Not an option.

Oh, you picked up (correctly) on the patronizing tone in my reply? Veeeery good. That means you're learning a bit of reading comprehension, something I honestly didn't have any hope of for you at one point here. That's when you can be actually bothered to read, you know.

You have forfeited any right to civility here. You started off posting in this clusterfuck of a thread, choosing exactly the pair of the author's presented options that are literally never an option in this scenario (as described above). You have since been doubling-down on that stance, and redirecting to all sorts of supplemental points to distract from, what I think you have since come to realize and simply don't want to admit, was the bone-headed error of your original foray in this conversation. Every post that you make beyond admitting your initial wrongness (in claiming that a 9-9 or 9-8 score is possible, let alone correct, in the given scenario) just serves to fuel the flames of ignorance around here, opening the door for others like @uhd100 and @Chiefit420 who simply don't or can't wrap their heads around the mild nuance of boxing's ten point must system and what the implications of it are in this discussion.

No, stop distracting from the main thrust of the issue here. What's salient in your first post in here is you voting for a 9-9 or 9-8 round, which is NEVER AN OPTION based on a knockdown (and honestly, if we're being technically, pedantically correct, not an option for deductions on a foul, either, as those should be subtracted from the individual round's base score in a separate totals column).

Right. I'm the casual. Okay, chief. You have no idea how stupid you look right now, so I'm not going to embellish on this any further than just quoting you in the broader context of this expository post. That's putting you on blast enough.

As to your first sentence: yeah, we'd like to believe so, but obviously there are plenty of folks like @Chiefit420 , @uhd100 and @DavidC77 who not only don't get it, but refuse to get it even after more knowledgeable folk have very kindly and patiently educated them, ad nauseum.

As for the rest of what you're on about: that's a whole separate can of worms. I'd appreciate if you and @lufcrazy would maybe table your sidebar conversation temporarily, or spin it out into a separate thread. I need to make sure that nobody's takeaway in browsing this, especially if they're just skimming around, is that scoring of "9-9" or "9-8" is ever acceptable in the OP's scenario. Those of us who KSAB really need to provide a unified front on this and shut down the ignoramuses, and not let them breed misinformation like bunnies the way internet flat-earth proponents do.

 

Alright, there, I've fixed things.