We all know the varients...10 point must...by rounds...California scoring...etc. Tho I understand the logic with all of them, one thing does 'boggle' my mind on any scoring system. Yes, the Patterson fan emerges again! If a fighter is taking a guy apart in a round and, with 10 seconds to go, drops him with a shot, be it off balance or solid, should that automatically warrant a 10-8? or a clear round? or a 2-0 (California)? IMO look at the body of work for the ENTIRE round, especially if the KD was of the off-balance variety. Comments of course welcome.
No! I really don't see the point of a 10 point must system if the 10 points aren't used. Maybe a 5 point must like they used to use. I don't like the way a knockdown is usually scored 10-8 with no regard to how the round has gone. I think if it's a close round hard to split them then 5-4. a dominant round 5-3 and a very strong round then possibly 5-2. I think a fighter can win a round even after or being being knocked down if he's won the rest of the round clearly. The way it is now even though it's called a 10 round must is based on how many rounds you win with extra points for a knockdown
down is down, and putting the opponent there is one of the main goals of boxing. If you are 'taking a guy apart' then you get dropped you shouldn't win the round imo, because you got dropped. Off balance means nothing to me in relation to scoring, a goal from the halfway line is worth the same as a tap in, winning a motor race by a minute is the same points as winning by a second. Not that the 10 point must system really makes any more sense than other ways of scoring fights, but we are not talking about amateur boxing.
If he's not overshadowing the fighter with his boxing then the other guy overshadows him when he's "taking him apart" in the last 10 seconds. If neither fighter can overshadow the other, a knockdown or a strong attack (however short) should be the deciding factor. If a guy is being dominated the whole round he deserves to be back in the fight if he scores a genuine knockdown or severely shaking his opponent before the bell. I think it should be up to the judges discretion wether or not he simply evens things up or takes the round because all situations are different.
Good points King; I may be destroying my own argument here but boxing is the ONLY sport I can think of where you can get your **** handed to you one-sidedly for 44:50 and win with one shot! Another thing I'm thinking about conversely; can a fighter win a round (10 pt. must) 10-8 without a KD if you TOTALLY dominate? I would assume it's happened a few times. Ali-Frazier FOTC 11th round comes to mind (tho that was a rounds scored fight)
10-8 can be scored without a kd, pretty rare tho i think. i would put some other fighting sports and soccer along with boxing in that regard, but that's about it.
