Should judges award more 10-10 rounds? Would it improve fights?

I don't think they should be particularly encouraged but there is a place for them. Usually there is some margin, somewhere to give the fight to one guy or the other, but when they're really inseperable, why not? First 10 - 10 round I'd scored in a while in Kovalev - Ward and I was tempted for a couple more.

 

I wish judges scored even rounds 10-10, instead of just scoring them for the hometown fighter.

 

I like the idea of at the end of every round all the judges scores for that round are announced so the fans in the arena, fighters and viewers all for certain know how it was scored and know where they stand in the fight at any given point

 

Yes judges should be allowed to award 10-10 rounds. Lets put it this way : judges shouldn't be discouraged to score rounds even as is often the case specifically in America. For years the British boxing community accepts 10-10 rounds as part of the sport, and as we all know even rounds were commonplace in America in the 20th century.

There was an agenda over the last several decades by the boxing establishment in America to encouage all judges to be forced to choose a winner no matter what. And many times that desire to have to give someone a round results in a lot of the controversial scorecards that we see.

I think the way it should be is that judges should have the ability to score a round even, but shouldn't be forced to. Some judges may prefer not to score even rounds, some judges may. And really there are certain fights where there's enough action or seperation in a round to have a winner in every single round. But occasionally you have a fight that's just too close to call, and you'll get a more accurate scorecard with multiple 10-10 rounds. Many fights are so darn close that should have more even rounds.

Take Canelo vs Floyd for example. There are people out there who thought that Floyd won the fight 12 rounds to 0 for goodness sake. Ask yourself how many of those rounds could have been 10-10 rounds. Even if you think Floyd edged most of the rounds vs Canelo, how is that different than thinking Ward slightly edged 7 or 8 of the rounds vs Kovalev?

 

This is called open scoring which has occured occasionally in past fights. While this sounds great in theory, it negatively affects many fights and many times it discourages the fighter who is losing a fight down the stretch or forces a fighter to go balls to the wall knowing for certain that he can't win a decision. It takes the intrigue out of a decision and personally I don't like it.

One example of this is Canelo vs Austin Trout. Many people blame this as to why Austrin Trout lost. It may have played out differently if Trout didn't know what the cards were during the fight and thought he may have won a decision. (even if he didn't end up winning the decision, it may have produced a better fight down the stretch)

Obviously there are examples of great fights that had open scoring, like Sugar Ray Leonard Tommy Hearns I, which SRL knowing he was down forced him to go balls to the wall in stopping Hearns. But that was also a 15 round fight, and I think a 15 round limit worked better with opening scoring, because if you know you are up by 4 or 5 points if the scores are announced after the 8th round, you can literally just run away for 4 rounds and know you'll win. (that's not a good thing) So given the 12 round limit, I don't think open scoring should exists. As a side note, if there were more 10-10 rounds, then open scoring may work better because fighters wouldn’t be able to have such an insurmountable lead heading into the final rounds.

In conclusion, I would say more 10-10 rounds or at least not discouraging them would improve boxing. Open scoring could work theoretically but generally seems to affect the natural flow of a fight which is why I’m against it.

 

why is the scoring hidden anyway? most sports have open scoring for the players and spectators to see if the judges are giving an acceptable score. open scoring will help eliminate corruption.

 

It's a "must" system because you have to score the round for one of the fighters.

The problem is when every single close round goes the same fighter, as well as ones that are not close.

Maybe they need 10-9 for close, 10-8 for clear, 10-7 for dominant / kd etc.

 

Total punches per fight. certain punches receive more weight than others:

Jab body 5
Jab face / head 6
Power punch body 9
Power punch face / head 12
KD 24 points
(Or whatever is fair , but these numbers and categories can be debated to get the best values )

Judges mark counters in a box for each round. At the end of the round the scores go into the computer.
At the end, points per round are calculated - winner wins by having most rounds. If 6-6 then total over fight. Or have a KD equivalent to a bonus round.

 

It's a 10 point must system, meaning you have to score (at least) a 10 for one of the fighters. You can score both fighters a 10. You can end up with a 9-9 if a fighter won a round but got deducted a point.

A 10-8 without a knockdown are scored in rounds where there is complete domination like one fighter against the ropes and getting hit for a long part of the round. 10-8 with no knockdows are unusual because rarely does one fighter emphatically dominate a round. 10-7 without a knockdown are unheard of generally. If there was a knockdown in a dominate round but the ref ruled it a slip, well you could factor that into a round, as well as any fouls that occured without point deduction like in the 12th of Kovalev Ward. Though the ref didn't deduct Kovalev for the low blow, in a close round could that be the difference between a 10-10 round or a 10-9 round. Judges are supposed to go by the ref, but even though the low blow wasn't called, it resulted in momentum for Andre Ward. That to me is why I scored Andre Ward 10-9 was because of how close the round was, and that after the low blow warning Andre Ward finished strong. Most judges are not used to considering a 10-10 round so these scenarios are not utilized. Kovalev Ward is a fight we can go through the rounds and see what rounds are a 10-10 vs a 10-9.

 

I see even rounds almost every with a 2 legit fighters going

 

Boxing needs an odd amount of rounds. Instead of 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. They need 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13.

Keep it 10-9, no 10-10.

 

If a round is very close, sure. But the punch stats, and damage done better be very even to do it.

 

Bring back 15 round title fights when you have two world title holders meeting. I agree on round 13 for regular title fights.

 

They're more frequently employed in Britain than in the USA, but not to a distracting or unnecessary extent.

American judges are probably too reticent on the whole, and shouldn't be.