In most fights the first round should be scored as 10-10

This is why so many fights that felt even throughout and feel like they could've been a draw, turn out with score cards wide one way usu. to the favored fighter. If you made a little room for 10-10 rounds - or maybe call it 9-9 if neither fighter did much to 'earn' the 10 - it might make close fights scored closer.

 

You're spot on – sometimes those early rounds can feel like a dance-off, right? It's frustrating when we try to find reasons to score 'em.

But hey, boxing's got its traditions, and judges gotta make those calls based on what they see, even if it's just a lil' jab here and there.

It might seem dumb, but hey, it's all part of the sport's charm.

 

When it comes to scoring, the fact is that in today's boxing there are so many scorecards that fans disagree with. There are so many accusaitons of bias or corruption amongst judges. Many of the same people who oppose scoring 10-10 rounds, or multiple 10-10 rounds in a single fight, are probably the same people constantly outraged by judges decisions. Which I find ironic.

If you scored more 10-10 rounds, or if judges were allowed to or encouraged to score more 10-10 rounds, maybe there would be less corrupt scorecards. Maybe then you wouldn't be giving the same fighter close round after close round and you end up with someone winning that really didn't deserve it. As an example, lets take Kovalev Ward 1. Maybe if judges scored a bunch of 10-10 rounds you'd have Kovalev winning comfortably, instead of giving Ward all those close rounds resulting in him winning the fight, you'd have a lot of 10-10s and the rounds Koavlev won were more clear, and the result would be less perceived corruption.

Just something to consider. I'm not suggestions that scoring 10-10s more often is a cure all for corruption, but I do think that often judges find themselves not sure who won a round and due to even rounds being discouraged ends up scoring in favor of a fighter that the masses don't think deserved to win, and he ends up winning because they don't score close rounds even. Instead they force themselves to make a decision that is highly subjective and unpopular on a round by round basis.

There's a good argument, that if you only give 10-9s when it's a clear, no doubt about it round winner, and otherwise you give it 10-10, then you end up scoring for the fighter that actually won more rounds clearly than the other, which in most cases results in the more deserving fighter actually winning. When you are forced to make a subjective often controversial decision in a majority of rounds, rather than having the ability to score even rounds, then you may well end up with more controversy because you're not distinguishing between close hard to score rounds and clear rounds won, which has the very real possibility of muddying the waters when it comes to awarding the more deserving fighter on who won more rounds clearly, rather than for the fighter who arguably / subjectively edged more rounds.

 

Yeah, i just get the sense that some boxing fans have kind of a narrow minded, dogmatic mentality when it comes to scoring. Like because it was done a certain way, we have to do it this way or we are doing it wrong. As some mentioned, being FORCED to pick a winner in every round gives corrupt judges more leeway for corrupt scorecards.

 

Oh please.

This is the type of traditionalist, type thinking i'm talking about. The notion that there is always a winner in a particular round is utter hogwash. It's SO subjective and in some rounds, it's too close to call.

 

Same, would encourage fighters to press the action.

 

Losing 10-9 round doesnt motivate a fighter enough?

 

Right and you shouldn't be able to win a round like that. The OP is 100% correct, but it's not just that the first round should be 10 10 usually, it's that MORE rounds need to be 10-10. A lot of people have this idiotic idea that a judge's job is to find a reason to give someone a round and that scoring a round 10-10 is some kinda failure of judging. That's moronic. If no one won the round, no one won the round. The criterion for winning a round should be much closer to "did either guy beat the other up" not who landed one or two punches more than the other guy.

I also don't think you should be able to win a fight based on 1 point, I think you should have at least a 2 point margin to get the W. Because think of fights like Hopkins vs Calzaghe. Did anyone really win that fight? Did either guy do more than the other? No, it's razor thin and it's only based on the technicality of the point system that anyone really won, but if guys were watching that fight on the street, would they say that either guy beat the other up? That either one of them won? Obviously not. Unless at the end of the fight you feel like one guy beat the other up, it should be a draw.

 

"In most fights most if not all rounds should be scored 10-10"
- David D Haye

 

It's called the 10 point must system for a reason!

In true reality there are rarely even rounds, just lazy/incompetent judges.

If you can't find a difference between the two fighters based on the four different areas of the judging criteria, you shouldn't be a judge!

99% of people who "judge" fights as they progress on here have no ****ing idea how the criteria works, and are usually heavily biased towards one fighter.

There is no real debate around this. To say that they should just make the first round even is ****ing ridiculous.

 

If there are incompetent judges, then the current edict to limit 10-10 rounds only exacerbates that. There are often rounds that could be scored either way depending on the criteria used; in that case, scoring an even round is entirely appropriate. It's dogmatic, arbitrary and flat out unrealistic to expect a judge to pick a winner of every tight round and expect them to be 100 percent on that.

Even rounds might be rare, but they absolutely can happen and should be scored that way. Maybe not exclusively in the first round, but certainly across the board.

 

That is what fans demand and expect from judges, so that we get fair results across the board. And the judging criteria is created to give them as much possible choice on scoring a round, so that they don't have to score it even.

For a round to be scored even, both fighters need to do the same amount of the same "actions" as defined by the scoring criteria.

The main problem is a large percentage of people discussing the subject have no real understanding of the scoring criteria, and have problems not being biased towards one fighter, then criticise judges for their work!

I know a couple of current and former judges. They would cripple themselves laughing at the first post in this thread. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the criteria that is used to judge boxing.

 

LOL

Keep talking like boxing is some tangible, definitive endeavor where there is a clear winner and loser in every round and somehow, these old guys viewing the fight from one limted angle (yes, they are old) who never boxed somehow have this eagle eye to somehow spot that winner every round.

This dogmatic thinking of some boxing fans is laughable. It is so outdated