Scoring even rounds. I love it.

Agreed.

 

If you score more than four rounds even, that's a cop-out, but sometimes fights are very very close and there are tiny differences that can't be scored in real time. Those will usually be drawn rounds - or a round where both fighters don't do anything.

it's fine to re-watch a round five times and score based on punch stats, ring generalship and with the sound turned down, but that's not how professional judges do it. You don't have the time to accurately assess all those elements to an empirical standard, so you take a best impression in the minute between rounds.

Basically, it's subjective and comes down to instinct and experience.

 

Ok it (the boxrec link,) says the winner must get 10 points but it doesn't seem a very in depth or comprehensive account and these are pretty unusual circumstances being discussed in this thread.

I'm sure that the full rules go on for at least a whole page with all the exceptions and rules to cover different scenarios.

It's all pretty academic anyway. In practice a KD round always gets scored 10-8 as far as I can see.

 

Well, it's interpretation to a degree in terms of how you score that round, I would say 10-8 is unfair when it's a flash KD, but you can't have judges deciding what is and isn't a "proper" knock down. That's way too subjective and would lead to more confusion and debate.

The rule is simple and effective - you knock your opponent down, you win the round. The winner of the round must receive 10 points, the loser less than that. I think a flash KD against the dominant fighter would see him lose the round 10-9. it rewards his enterprise, but penalises him for getting knocked down. That's 100% fair.

The guy who landed the most effective punch (the only way it could be more effective is if he knocked the other guy out) wins the round. Effective doesn't mean "hard" - it means it scores you points.

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/How_to_Score_a_Fight

that's the consolidated explanation on BoxRec. If you get knocked down, you weren't protecting yourself or your opponent landed a good shot - it's one or the other and, either way, it deserves a 10 point round for the guy who scored the KD.

 

What's wrong with the winner getting a 10-9 for dominated, then losing a point for getting knocked down (making it 9-9). You haven't really provided a reason why that logic doesn't work, you've just stated that you think it is (or should be) the other way. :think

The only argument I can see is the semantic one, literally interpreting "10 point must". But it's not a strict "must" if the winner of a round can be awarded only 9 points if a point is deducted for a foul. Why would it not work the same for a KD?

 

Like i said, if that's what it is then that's what it is. But i don't think it's fair. If i'm boxing your ears off, then at 1:00 into the round you knock my ass on the floor, then i get up and proceed to box your ears off for the best part of 2 minutes then i don't like that you won that round. And the link you give me does'nt actually give a comprehensive breakdown on scoring a round of this nature, which is a very possible one every time a bout happens.

I'm not that arsed about it though so it's not that much of a big deal, if what you said is what it is then it's **** in my opinion but i'll deal with it.

 

I agree with this, again, logical to me.

 

Some more stuff...

http://abcboxing.com/documents/abcboxing_regulatory_guidelines.htm

 

Thanks again, noone was debating what a knockdown is though. It still doesn't shed light on our scenario though. It says on one of the bullet points that a knockdown AND the winning of the round is 10-8.

We want to know how judges score a round where a guy scores a knockdown AND LOSES the round (in general). We know how we think it should be scored, we want to know how it is scored.

 

It's wrong because it's giving credit to a fighter who got knocked down - something that you are meant to avoid at all costs - "protect yourself at all times". It makes a round a draw when the rules clearly state that should be counted as a lost round. If you want to go that way, then a 10-8 round shouldn't ever be given for a round with no knock downs.

A foul is completely different - getting knocked down isn't breaking the rules, it's something you are penalised for as part of the rules - it's part of the scoring system. A foul is outside of the rules and, along with losing points, persistent fouling will see you disqualified.

In response to your point, you're not explaining why your way works better or is more fair. it seems unfair to the guy who scored the knock down. Lucky or not, whether the other man was off-balance or not - he took advantage of the opportunity.

It's all in the grammar here - if it read: "a knockdown, and the winning of the round, is 10-8" then you'd be right. It would suggest a KD doesn't win the round. But it doesn't have the comma, so it's discussing them in the singular - scoring a knockdown and, therefore, winning the round. God bless working as a copywriter finally coming in useful other than for my pay cheque.

The reason i mentioned the criteria of a knock down is because there isn't an addendum for scoring a heavy or a flash knock down -a knock down is a knock down.

My answer is, you cannot lose the round if you score a knockdown, but you may not get a two point margin if you didn't clearly win the round up until, or after, that point.

 

Boxing is not all about knockdowns and being stronger than your opponent. If i embarrass you in every facet of the game, as in school the **** out of you and then you knock me down, i don't think you have deserved to win the round, personally. Knockdowns are good and they should be credited, as they are, but they are by no means the be all and end all of the art of boxing man!

Anyway, the point about 10-8 rounds being given without a kd riles me as well. It's totally a subjctive point and is left up to the judge to recognise wether the round was dominated enough by one man to deem it 10-8. In my opinion if a man is taking a shellacking but he shows the heart to stay on his feet and fight back or ship punishment, he deserves his 9 points. Just my opinion.

 

Even without the comma i can still make that out to mean the way i took it originally. Really, the way you're construing it doesn't mean that the knockdown wins the round outright. Not in my perception of the grammar anyway. A knockdown and the winning of the round. Even without a comma that still can mean that two things need to happen to secure the 10-8 round.

I have to knock you down and win the round. See, no comma, no right or wrong answer, just how you perceive the text. Mine is prefectly acceptable in my opinion, yours could be also, that's why we're curious.

 

No, it's not, but a knock down is a decisive statement in a fight, JMM-Pac II was swung on that knock down. Boxing is not all about silky-smooth skills and making the other guy miss - it's about:

clean punching
effective aggression
ring generalship
defence

with emphasis on the first two. If you knock a guy down, then it's pretty clear your aggression was more effective.

i don't think you're wrong, really - but this is the scoring system that is used and, in practice, it's consistent with those rules. I think it's important that a guy who scores a KD is rewarded. he might be slow, he might be crude, but if he can keep landing a good shot, he can get a knock-down and stay in contention.

 

No, you need the comma to make it mean that. written without the comma, it supports my interpretation - "if I knock you down I will win the round."

With the comma, your interpretation is correct, that winning the round is a separate issue to scoring the knock down. The comma is really important in a sentence like that.

 

I think we're getting into things that i haven't said and things that aren't being debated here. I know what the criteria is for winning fights. What i'm saying is, and what i have said all along is that if a guy totally dominates a round, so you can take that as effective punching and effective aggression, and is knocked down, then i don't think he should lose the round. 9-9 sounds perfect for me, but if that's a no go then i can live with 10-10, because at least the principles are being kept to.

If the guy who scores the kd wins then like i said i can live with it, i just think it's ****.

I'm off now anyway. Later.