What's your theory on giving out 10-10 rounds?

If neither fighters wins the round, they shouldn't...win the round, if you get me. If both fighters press the action for exactly 1:30 of a round, both throw 60 punches and land 20, both show the same amount of ring generalship and whatever, neither man deserves to win or lose the round.

10-10 rounds should happen a lot more often than they do. In a lot of cases, you simpyl can't pick between the two fighters. If that is the case, one doesn't deserve to be penalised when he has done the same as the other guy.

 

i score 10/10 rounds.

it is my beleif that in 90% of fights where there is a big crowd and a big hometown fighter the hometown fighter gets these rounds on judges scorecards which is why hometown advantage is just that.

 

This is probably more of a classic forum question, but does anyone know what the deal was with Hagler-Seales I? That's some wacky scoring. 10 round fight, scores were 99-99, 99-99, 98-96. How can there be THAT many draw rounds in a single fight?

 

I usually don't score a round 10-10. i am usually hesitant to simply give out a 10-10, but if the action is too close to call...then i'm not going to favour one guy over the other.

 

I don't think you should score rounds even if it's too close to call because basically you are not giving any credit to one of the fighters' effort - it's better to hurt one running into the risk of misjudging than any other option. Consider Mosley-Cotto, they almost threw the same number of punches all the way from start to finish so where should you draw the line? I do agree that you should make it even in uneventful rounds and that will bring the scorecards closer, hurting the winner for his lack of effort. Finally, there is no reason to score rounds 10 to 9 if the rounds are very balanced towards one guy, even if no knockdown happen.

 

I'd like to see them more often. Too often I think that a round is too close to call and the judges just give it to one guy to avoid looking indesicive.

 

I don't like to use even rounds. Someone has to win each round - even when it's close.

 

I score rounds even sometimes. Usually when not much happened, or the round was a barn burner where both fighters looked good. I also believe in 10-8 without a knock down.

Boo

 

In theory, perhaps.

But the judges cannot even get the "obvious" rounds right it seems, so surely one would be better simply to err straight down the middle.

 

It's the fighters job to win the round not the judges job to give it to him.

 

I'll make a third post.

It is not that there is no difference, but rather that there is no significant difference (in an even round).

The debate should perhaps centre around what constitutes a significant difference.

 

Agree entirely. The problem comes when there are rounds where there are rounds where essentially nothing happens. Under current scoring convention the judges are then forced to look for a reason to give the round to one fighter or another (did one land one or two jabs, or the other 'attempt to press the action?). The Froch/Dirrell fight was a really good example, and that is the reason why there are very differing spreads. That fight could legitimately be scored anywhere from 7-5 Froch to 8-4 Dirrell depending on how you score a number of rounds where basically neither accomplished anything of any worth.

That said, I don't think there is any point in making up your own scoring system, so when I am watching and scoring a fight I score it according to current judging convention, so I can compare my card to the judges ones.