Around 1900 there was a movment to change boxing rules so that if two fighters were tied on the cards, the reff could order additional rounds untill a clear winner emerged. The initial idea was that the reff would add rounds in increments of five but the increments might have been reduced as fights became shorter. Obviously it didn't happen, but if it had then how would history be different?
Damn shame that one ended in a draw. If there had been a clear winner, it might have blown the division wide open.
That would have made it interesting. These are some of the matches that went into overtime: Doug DeWitt vs. Tony Thornton 13th round ... Sanderline Williams vs Ron Essett 13th round ... Bruce Curry vs. Rafael Rodriguez 11th round
I believe it was in New Jersey, where if state title fights were scored a draw after 12 rounds, that up to three additional rounds would be contested until the winner of a round (and thus the match), was produced. (I recall this happening once in a televised bout, I think on ESPN, where both contestants were instructed to leave their gloves on after 12, but it's not a vivid memory.) Might you be able to shed some light on this rule set, if it was indeed in NJ, hhascup? (On the other hand, you may have just identified one of the instances I'm trying to recall.)
What I'm distantly recalling feels like it must have taken place during the heyday of Top Rank Boxing on ESPN during the early part of that decade. In any event, I personally despise scoring a round evenly. Something I really liked about the 15 round limit, by the way, is the fact that an odd number of rounds are contested if it goes the distance. We might see far fewer draws if all matches were scheduled for an odd number of rounds, three, five, seven, nine, 11, etc.
I am British and have never really had a problem with draws in sport, sometimes it is quite justified IMO. But I do understand Americans as a whole, do not like draws. I understand and agree with your point about judges scoring a round even. A judge is there to judge, not bottle making a decision, unless two fighters perfectly mirror each other for three minutes, a round cannot be a draw, someone has had the edge and should be judged as such. As a footnote; I guess you would be mighty pissed off if you were brought up on Argentine boxing, in which anything that had a doubt to it, was generally scored a draw...
I am not so sure that scoring a close round even is a bad thing. Sometimes, it is the fact that judges score close rounds for one particular fighter that makes fights controversial. For example if fighter A gets the nod in 6 close rounds where neither fighter is hurt and there are about the same number of staggering blows, but then fighter B starts to take over and win the last 4 rounds clearly, then the fact that fighter A has already won the fight will make it a controversial decision. In those circumstances, scoring the close rounds a draw might be a far better option. I think the judging system is very difficult and we have a far from perfect system, but it is near impossible to suggest a better scoring system.
There might have been a few more greats with some additional losses on their records, had this been the case. Sugar Ray Leonard would certainly have been one of them. I do however feel, that there are very few fights in history that can GENUINELY be considered as having perfectly even outcomes.. Even in some of the closest bouts, a winner probably could have been decided, had someone been forced to draw straws.
Scoring a round evenly can be a legitimite, honest thing when scoring a fight..it's a reality in boxing..an unpopular thing, but a reality in boxing...if a round's even, then it's even..get over it.
