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

No, it doesn't require each fighter to do the exact same actions. It's a matter of weighing the actions of each fighter against another and deeming it even or close to even. i.e. 3 light jabs against one clean hook could be even. 1 stiff jab, and 2 partly blocked jabs vs one clean hook plus could be even. One fighter landing more jabs, but the other fighter slipping shots, and landing harder shots could be even.

Here's the problem though with the status quo. People complain about judges constantly, pretty much every decision is seen as a robbery. So the way it is, which involves judges being discouraged from scoring even rounds is clearly not working.

If we're looking for solutions to make scoring more acceptable, to produce less robberies, then something needs to change. And scoring more even rounds is definitely something that should be considered as a possible solution. Because (and this is very important) the main culprit that produces robberies is the scoring of close (or possibly even) rounds to the wrong fighter. That would happen far less often if the judges weren't being discouraged from scoring even rounds. It's far more acceptable for a close round to be scored even than for it to be scored for the wrong fighter, and the rounds with a clear winner would go the rightful winner so there would be far less egregiously scored rounds. There's usually at least a couple of "abundantly clear" rounds in any given fight, and merely a handful of clear rounds is all you need to determine a winner. The close rounds, or remotely close rounds, if judges score them even, then they would not be scoring close rounds for the wrong fighter anymore, which is the main problem that exists, and then we would be using only the clear rounds to determine the winner.

 

Any pursuit which has no tangible outcome and relies instead on human judgment is flawed anyway.

no man can judge another man, lest he be judged himself.

 

No it shouldnt you should reward guy who make more effort and gets more done. Fighter A was a better in that round thats why it is done in boxing

 

It's in no one's interests if boxing judges start becoming more indecisive in their scoring. Ridiculous discussion.

 

It isnt too hard to call though. If you are ringside and paying attention there is normally a winner. Without any camera angles or one eyed commentators dictating the action it becomes a lot more simpler to observe the punches.

If a boxing judge was in the business of handing out too many 10-10 rounds it would be suspect of their ability as a judge. You guys actually want to give an indecisive judge a sticker or something. Madness

 

Well not really if they can win one back by landing a couple more jabs than the other fighter. That’s kinda what the poster is saying.

 

Spence did enough in rnd 1 to win it.

 

My initial thoughts was Crawford as he punched an extra one for one punch.