Scoring 10-8 rds where there is no kd

If a 10-8 round is occurring then it's likely the ref/corner is gonna stop it anyway, perhaps that's why we don't see it more often.

I would score round 6 of Mayweather-Gatti a 10-8 (which was stopped straight after).

 

I never do it. I've seen Teddy Atlas do it, but he's also completely mental.

I score plenty of even rounds 10-10 because, well, they're even.

 

John McDermott vs. Danny Williams in one of the two a battles.. no knockdown..

 

This content is protected

 

Sorry, I meant I disagree with your scoring method.
If 10-10 and 10-8 ought to be so rare, 10-9 will cover too much ground.

It's not fair to give a round 10-9 if it's so close it's arguably the other way, and at the same time reward a clear boxing lesson with 10-9 also.

 

Khan Maidana round 10 should have been a 10/8 to Maidana, not sure if it was scored that way.

 

And that's exactly how it's done most of the time, and why it's so easy to score a fight for the guy you want to win.
Boxing's scoring is extremely flawed, because we can get a guy that edges the first 5 rounds on most scorecards and then gets figured out and beaten from pilar to post in the next 5 get a draw out of it (or even win, see Matthysse vs Alexander), and have people claim it wasn't a robbery because of how boxing is scored.

Another good example

 

Yeah, I noticed a lot of people who were arguing over Kovalev-Ward were talking about a lot of rounds they ultimately admitted could go either way but when you add up the rounds over the whole fight it made all the difference.
Doesn't seem fair. If there's a proper degree of doubt of subjectivity, just call it 10-10.
10-9 should be something you can stand by with 100% confidence.
10-8 should be some sort of domination.

 

I'm looking forward to a lot more 10\10 rounds in 2017 as they are relatively common

 

It actually is exactly as fair as it was meant to be when the system was implemented. The whole point of ten-point must is that, generally speaking, no matter how competitive the frame is, the victor gets ten (barring any deductions on fouls) and the loser gets nine. That isn't an oversight but rather the crux of how the system was envisioned. They did that on purpose, and their instincts weren't off the mark IMO. There's nothing the matter with the fact that you can have a hard-fought and 'close' 120-108 shutout while on the other end of the spectrum having a 116-112 that became a whitewash and even a downright shellacking from the 5th on.

 

You make good points. Try explaining to a non boxing fan that a round would be scored 10-8 if a glove touches the canvas after a glancing blow with the boxer maybe off balance at the time, but a three minute domination where there is no knockdown is likely to be scored 10-9 in most cases. That's an anomaly...

 

The scoring of boxing is usually no better or worse than the scoring for any other subjectively scored contest. The points system used is almost irrelevant. The human element - the interpretation and judgement - is where the controversy lies.

Different people often see the exact same thing in very different ways.

A good example is a crime witnessed by a number of people. If you compare their witness statements it is can be almost impossible to believe they witnessed the exact same occurrence.