OK, I'm the Patterson nut-hugger here but let's look at how rounds are scored based on a knockdown. Points system: A knockdown virtually assures the striker with a 10-8. I've not followed boxing closely since the early 90's (save the occasional big fight with all the alphabet champs, weight restructuring, and general BS) but the old California rules were 0-0 on an even round, 1-0 on a won round, 2-0 on a knockdown, and, in the case of the Floyd-Jerry scrap one 3-0 with 2 knockdowns.) Based on professional judging (not amateur) does not a judge base his round decision on ''ring professionalism", clean shots, etc.? If a fighter totally dominates in a round and gets caught with a flash shot towards the end?...Does that nullify his 2:30 of dominance without question? Say a fighter gets caught with a "looie" early on, shakes his head laughing at "why did I get caught by that one" and proceeds to pound the crap out of his opponent for the next 2:30, even landing that big left hook late in the round that has his opponent not knowing what planet he resides on? I've always thought judges should judge each instance on its own and not rush to the 10-8. To be fair, maybe that's the only way they've decided that it should be done. Comments?
Good Point Jowcol.. Remember the amateurs, when a knockdown was scored as nothing more than a good jab. In the late-1960's, 1970's and early-1980's the judges did get carried away with automatically scoring a 10-8 for the fighter who scored the knockdown, no matter what he did in the round. And, also the scoring by round only (primarily in New York) affected many decision results. Fight Judges, like everyone else, needed to evolve into a proper observant in scoring a round.
I think Barrera had a round where he got dropped but beat the other guy up so much he won the round. This.was pre junior Jones. Eddie cook maybe?
Or just the opposite,,,,,, Some fighters get battered from pillar to post the entire round, and only lose it 10-9. The 10-point must system, is only a guide.
