Something I've been thinking about since Bradley/Provodnikov. I'm loathe to ever score a round 10-8 if there has been no knockdown regardless of how much of a beat down the fighter gets. I realise that there is a flaw in that logic because a fighter might get knocked down and not really be hurt at all and a fighter might not get knocked down and be incredibly hurt and so why give the advantage to the guy who was hurt more? However, I feel like scoring a round 10-8 when there has been no knock down kind of takes value away from what a knockdown is and represents. So my question is firstly, how often do you find yourself scoring a round 10-8 when there has been no knockdown? And, if you have scored a round 10-8 with no knockdown, would you ever accept a scoring system that allowed for a round to be scored 10-9 even if there had been a knockdown if the knocked down fighter was convincingly unaffected by it?
if a fighter is getting battered around for 3 minutes and not throwing back punches, why shouldn't it be scored a 10-8 rounds?
I never really used to but often you see rounds that don't have a knockdown more deserved of a 10-8 score than a lot of rounds where one fighter is just down briefly or only technically dropped because he grazed a glove or something. It's hard to know where to draw the line, whereas at least with a KD it's pretty black and white.
Very rarely. The 10th round from Khan-Maidana comes to mind. It's a very high standard. I think it's justified. Many people complain that you can get your ass kicked for 5 rounds and scrape by 7 and win a fight many feel you lost in a philosophical sense. Being able to score 10-8 rounds when it's a complete beat-down adds more fairness to the quality of the work being done by giving points to those types of rounds.
simply because he hasn't been knocked down. Would you ever score a round 10-7 if the fighter was literally battered for 3 minutes but didn't touch the canvas? that could be worse than 2 knockdowns no?
i dont think rounds should be scored 10-8 if their is no knockdown. a boxer who tries hard not to be knocked down dosent deserve to have a point taken away from him ...now its is the referees responsibility to stop a fight if he feels a fighter cant throw back....
Yeah, that's the conflict. That someone didn't go down must surely count for something? Then again, some fighters get knocked down because of balance issues so perhaps knockdowns themselves are valued too highly and perhaps there should be more scrutiny on them when it comes to scoring?
such scoring is rarely used though i would never score a round 10-7 without a KD, unless fighter A is getting hammered by fighter B and fighter A gets a point deducted for holding or some other foul, in my view, scoring a one-sided round 10-8 should be optional, but ONLY if one of the fighters is getting completely dominated and cannot answer the other fighter's punches
It's a huge flaw in the system that judges are basically given a 3-point margin to work with when it's a 10-point must system and nine OR LESS to the loser of the round. If a guy batters someone, staggers them, and he only wins the round 10-9 -- and the next round the other guy wins the round by perhaps the margin of a few effective jabs or a pitty-pat combination, well that's not fair. After two rounds it's 19-19 and one guy has done far more than the other. Let's say there's a round like Foreman-Frazier that does not end in a stoppage. That's going to be judged 10-7. The next three rounds the guy recovers and has the edge by a narrow margin, but never hurts the guy who knocked him down. That's even? I'd like to see a wider range -- 10-6 or 10-5 rounds for multiple knockdowns, for instance. It is a more fair way to decide a winner. Why not make it a 2-point must system or 3-point must system if the most one-sided possible round is going to be scored 10-7. Or let's just go back to the round system, where it doesn't matter how wide the margin of difference between the fighters is in any given round, a guy can get flatted twice in each of the first five rounds and then narrowly outbox his foe in the next five and we'll just call it a draw.
I haven't seen that fight so thank you, I'll bookmark it. Should it go the other way do you think? do you think scoring rounds 10-9 when there has been a knockdown could introduce fairness depending on the context of the knockdown?
Rarely I think the 3rd round of Froch vs Bute was a 10-8, Hurt multiple times and pretty much just given a sustained beating for the last 2 mins of the round with very little coming back.
Codes of cunduct and Interpretation aside, it no doubt comes down to who you are supporting in the fight. Bradly fan- round 1, 10-9 provodnikov fan-round 1, 10-8
One sided beatdowns in rounds are deserving of being scored 10-8. What I hate are situations where fighter A is handily winning a round and on his way to a 10-9 round, all of a sudden getting dropped in a flash knockdown because he had his legs wrongly placed or something of that sort....I hate it when the round is then scored 10-8 to fighter B, even though he was clearly losing the round handily. When I score, I score such a round even. Score it as you wish, 10-10 or 9-9, but fighter A does not deserve to be deducted 3 points for a flash knockdown, and by giving fighter B a 10-8 score for a lucky knockdown, thats what essentially you are doing. The round should have been 10-9 fighter A without the flash knockdown. With the knockdown, the rightful way to score such a round would be to deduct a point for the knockdown, making it a 9-9 or an even round, but definitely not a 3 point swing out of luck. Hell no!