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

Fury landed 5/18 punches in round 12.

Watching the round he lands one single powerless punch in the first 90 seconds of the round. After the knockdown he lands a couple of jabs and then his only decent punch is landed while in the clinch. In the final minute he doesn't land a single punch although he throws a flurry which all miss or land on Wilder's arms.

Anyone who doesn't score that 10-8 to Wilder should give up.

 

Also, a fighter who scores a kd and dishes out a generous beating is rarely given a 10-7, but should be.

The first round of the Crawford fight last night was as much a 10-10 as any.

 

Seriously? 9-9 or 9-8....

@IntentionalButt help me, I need 10 point must therapy.....

 

The answer is, at the discretion of the judge. A KD does not automatically secure a 10-8 round (although more often than not it is scored like this) so I could see the round as you described being awarded 10-9 to the fighter who knocked his opponent down, if the rest of the round was a one-sided beat down in favour of the fighter who was floored. But a 10-10 would be fine also...

 

IMO:
Depends on when the knockdown occurs, if the knockdown is the beginning of the round and the person knockdown absolutely dominates the rest of the round, I'd think it's 10-9 not 10-8. If the person is winning the round then knocked down late: it's 10-8 because the person scoring the knockdown ended the round stronger.

For the most part it should always be a 10-8 round, there are very few examples of a fighter utterly dominating after the knockdown. As an example, use Wilder vs. Fury, even though Fury was stronger than Wilder after the knockdown, he didn't dominate or warrant it being a 10-9 round.

It's ultimately subjective.

 

Here & in later posts just on this thread you are nasty & demeaning to someone who is non-abusive to you.
You erode the credibility of what otherwise may be perfectly reasonable arguments when you stoop to acting like the stereotype of a mean, often adolescent Internet warrior.

So it damages your reputation with mature, secure posters, & contributes to hurting the peace & credibility of the whole forum.

If you would not attack a peaceful man in person like this, don't do it here.

 

I agree, though I think the powers that be discourage the actual judges of giving out 10-7 rounds in such a case because it puts the fighter in such a hole that even if he made a comeback the disparity in points in that one single round makes it nearly impossible of a situation to climb out of.
I do agree though. My thinking is that if a judge is encouraged of finding anything in a round to tilt the round from being an even round, and this usually means that the judge is giving out 10-9 rounds that could go either way to the same fighter which is usually the house fighter.
Then why not encourage a wider gap in a round than a 10-8 when its applicable?
A complete shallaking of a fighter to the point you can score the round 10-8 without a knockdown, but it just so happens a knockdown also occurred, why not a 10-7 when its completely one sided.

 

I just did some skimming of the thread and there is some fascinating theory going on so instead of jumping on the arguments in the middle, I might just throw what I was originally going to say in as it seems it will essentially back up the guys I am agreeing with.

The 10 point must system means that the winner of a round MUST get 10 points. Knock downs must be factored as a point deducted, if there are knock downs then the person knocked down is effectively immediately two points down regardless of whatever else happened - but if they score a knock down then it zeroes it out... everything else is to the judge's discretion.

The only way a round can end up where both guys have less than 10 points added for that round is when a point has been deducted from a fighter - in the case of where that point is deducted from the guy who won, so really they essentially were scored a 10-9 round but then they lost a point for being naughty...

 

I've never before heard anyone give that round 10-7.

Had the kd been scored it would have been a clear 10-8 MAB round, as it was I believe its a clear 10-8 JMM round.

 

Get out of here with that soy boy nonsense. Toughen up.

 

It should depend entirely on how impacted the fighter was by the KD. If he was off balance. If he wasn't hurt. Those things matter. If the guy is KDd and hurt then that makes all the difference. So, if a guy is dominating a round and gets KDd but is not hurt, just was off balance, then I would make it an even round, maybe even 10-9 for the fighter who was KDd if the other fighter is more hurt.

 

10-9

 

I am tough-I made a case about not being mean towards others. I was not personally insulted nor wounded..
Usually people who feel the need to denigrate & mock others, especially those who are ANONYMOUS on an Internet forum, are faking being tough.
They are compensating for a perceived weakness or lack of self-esteem by bullying others from a safe space.
Hence the near universal contempt for "Keyboard Warriors".

You have no actual justification for attacking someone unprovoked.
You resort to childish insults, like an insecure cultural warrior.
It is almost like you are trying to make up for your nerdish avatar.

Ask around & see if anyone thinks you devolving to the level of those who flame & troll hyperactively & get banned...
Will do anything but lose you Respect.

 

Have you've ever scored a round 10-8 where no knockdowns occurred?

I for example scored a couple of 10-8 rounds for Manny Pacquiao against Antonio Margarito.
Are you going to tell me that say if Margarito in either of those 10-8 rounds scored a flash knockdown of Pacquiao toward the end of the round where Pacquiao got right up being visibly not shaken, you would score the round now 10-8 for Margarito?
One punch resulting in a flash knockdown by Margarito in a round where Pacquiao outlanded him 30-5, you'd score 10-8 Margarito because he scored a flash knockdown?