Should 10-8 be the maximum a fighter can earn in a round ???

Remember Chris quite validly saying Manny got a slightly fortunate draw against Marquez in their first fight........(I thought he was robbed) But it got me thinking is it fair to give someone a 10-6 round or 10-4 in the case of one judge in the Hearns-Andries fight.......

But sticking to Manny-Marquez,,,,,,,Manny caught Marquez cold and took his legs with the first knockdown and all the subsequent knockdowns were related to that first punch............Basically for landing one shot Manny got four rounds........

For Manny to get a slightly fortunate draw..............That would mean Marquez would at least win the rest of the fight 8-3.........

So basically he dominated two thirds of the fight in his worst case scenario... and gets a draw basically because of one punch in the first round he didn't recover from.......

Is that Fair ????............I don't think so........I think 10-8 should be the max... that way you have to dominate an opponent to get a win or at least hold your own for most of it.........

Yeah

Well thanks for your opinion........It wouldn't hurt to elaborate a little though..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Well thanks for your opinion........It wouldn't hurt to elaborate a little though..

You welcome  

As for elaborating...well personally I think 10-8 should be the maximum a fighter can earn in a round

I don't know to be honest.

It seems impotant to ask as there are still so many dodgy decisions anyway.

Burns v Beltran and the bird who judged Mayweather v Canelo prime examples

ONETWOFOREVER wrote: and the bird who judged Mayweather v Canelo prime examples

You have a way with words......... 

It comes down to how you judge the wider range of skill however, that muddles the issue. Judges, at their discretion, can award a round to a fighter who may have landed fewer punches, if they deem that his punches were harder, that he was substantially more effective in his defense, that he was more accurate, more aggressive, or more anything else that the judge deems important

No. How could it be deemed fair to score Pacquiao bouncing Marquez around the ring the same as Hamed touching down with one glove against Kevin Kelley?

10-6 worked.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:It comes down to how you judge the wider range of skill however, that muddles the issue. Judges, at their discretion, can award a round to a fighter who may have landed fewer punches, if they deem that his punches were harder, that he was substantially more effective in his defense, that he was more accurate, more aggressive, or more anything else that the judge deems important

That's fair enough...........I think more clarity could be a good idea.......Me I decide on who I think had the better of the exchanges.....

Steffan wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Well thanks for your opinion........It wouldn't hurt to elaborate a little though..

You welcome  

As for elaborating...well personally I think 10-8 should be the maximum a fighter can earn in a round

You did elaborate a little... 

I have no issue with scoring a round 10-6 but there needs to be a bit of leeway in the scoring. Using the Pacquiao/Marquez fight as an example the first round in my opinion was not a 10-6, from memory none of the knockdowns were heavy ones and Marquez recovered very quickly. On the otherhand the first round in Lewis/Grant contained three heavy knockdowns that left Grant all over the place so rightly would be a 10-6.

Fair enough Mate and your opinion is welcome................

Just think having a really bad round shouldn't mean you can control 2/3 of the fight and still draw..

Happy for others to disagree.

Well 1 punch can win a fight so I see no issue with one punch winning a few rounds. You can dominate a 11 rounds and go home with worse than a draw if you walk onto a big punch and don't recover.

What if a boxer dropped a guy early in the round, really pushed for the stoppage but couldnt get the guy out of there and gassed in the process. He would have essentially thrown the fight away for a single 10-8 round.

Also, if one guy goes down early then whats to stop him going down easy later in the round for a breather. Seems to unfairly weight the match in favour of the guy getting bounced around.

No. I don't think it's fair that you can knock your opponent down multiple times, he edges the next two rounds and the fight is level. That wouldn't give a fair reflection.

Maybe there's an argument for more discretion in scoring wider than 10-9 without knockdowns, but capping at 10-8 would make the system worse not better.

I would so it is fair to score it 10-6, within the rules its not about how heavy a knockdown is, Pac got to marquez and knocked him down numerous times in the round and to me that rightly gives him that scoring. As you touch on in your OP the first knockdown took it out of Marquez and had an effect on the other knockdowns. To me that is good work from Pac hurting him so much with the first shot that he could take advantage of it. Understand your point though as Marquez went on to dominate the fight and had he not had those knockdowns would have won. All ifs and buts though as he did take those shots and did get knocked down.

Totally disagree with this. It's all very well establishing a slight edge in a number of rounds, but the effect of a truly one-sided session deserves to be given due weight on a scorecard. If you take the logic underpinning the idea that a single punch shouldn't dictate the result of a fight to its reductio ad absurdum conclusion, you might as well argue that a Mike Weaver-style last minute KO of an otherwise dominant opponent should not be judged the ultimate result, because it wasn't a proper reflection of what had gone before it.

If a fighter is knocked down several times in an early round, then he should have to bridge a substantial gap. A football team that plays abysmally for ten minutes and goes 3-0 down can't squawk about the fact that they were the better side for the next 80, but only managed two goals to show for it.

In effect, a fighter who is dominated to the extent that he loses a round 10-6 or 10-7 has been saved by the bell (Cruz-McGuigan R15 a classic example). That's fine, but the scoring should reflect this. The disparity between this situation and a 10-9 round, where any advantage gained might be relatively narrow, is of far greater significance than a difference of only one point on a scorecard can possibly show.

No because, the guy could just take a knee in the round he's hurt in with no repercussions?

AlexHuckerby wrote:No because, the guy could just take a knee in the round he's hurt in with no repercussions?

Well, aside from my viewpoint (better summarised by the captain), this is a very good point.

Agree with Captain on this. If a fighter gets knocked down 3, 4 times in a round then its up to him to get back in to the fight. You cant say its ok you got knocked down 4 times in this round but if you win the next round its all even.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I have no issue with scoring a round 10-6 but there needs to be a bit of leeway in the scoring. Using the Pacquiao/Marquez fight as an example the first round in my opinion was not a 10-6, from memory none of the knockdowns were heavy ones and Marquez recovered very quickly. On the otherhand the first round in Lewis/Grant contained three heavy knockdowns that left Grant all over the place so rightly would be a 10-6.

Agreed on the Manny Marquez round. Those were all clear knockdown, but none were particularly heavy. A 10-6 for me is an annihilation with multiple hard KDs.

The issue with 10-6 type rounds is that we don't have many reference points because if someone suffers say 3 heavy KDs then there's a good chance they'll be KO'd in that or the next round and no one will ever bother asking about/reporting the scores of particular rounds.

I'd be a fan of encouraging more leeway with wider scores under the 10 point must system. I dislike it when one fighter wins a few rounds conclusively and then the other disputably nicks some and is ahead overall. That said, wider interpretation of the scores invites more scope for ridiculous scoring from what feels like a majority of really poor judges.

For me it's a wider issue on how you score a fight. If you treat it as you are meant to, it's just about winning an individual round, and most rounds won wins the fight. The exception is the point deduction for a knockdown. Although a dominant round with no knock downs can be scored 10-8, it's unusual.

This gives us fights like macklin sturm that are controversial. Macklin wins his rounds clearly, sturm edges his. I had it pretty even in rounds but on balance macklin deserved the win.

I think more liberal use of say 10-7 for a battering. 10-8 for a well won round and 10-9 for a close one, would mean the 'right' man would win more often. However, that's not the basis for boxing which is about number of rounds won, not how well they are won.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I have no issue with scoring a round 10-6 but there needs to be a bit of leeway in the scoring. Using the Pacquiao/Marquez fight as an example the first round in my opinion was not a 10-6, from memory none of the knockdowns were heavy ones and Marquez recovered very quickly. On the otherhand the first round in Lewis/Grant contained three heavy knockdowns that left Grant all over the place so rightly would be a 10-6.

Interesting points but I feel allowing for some kind of leeway is open to abuse from judges & refs. How many times has a fighter been stopped on what we as fans saw as a soft knockdown or a fighter stopped on the ropes whilst taking punches on the arms? How about the Witherspoon vs Bonecrusher Smith fight where Witherspoon lost on the 3 knockdowns & out rule? Similar situation to the aforementioned fight where he was fine to have carried on but fell victim to a rule not enforced by all governing bodies or all state commissions. A knockdown is a knockdown & should be awarded as such not down to the discretion of judges who may or may not have a vested interest in the outcome of the fight due to a unscrupulous promoter.

I have always argued that the 10 point must system is too blunt an instrument to judge by, even without considering KDs- The case in point being you can just about nick rounds and be awarded10-9, or absoluetly dominate rounds, but fail to score a KD, and so are still only awarded 10-9. I'd like to see an system more in keeping with the old amateur system, which was a 20 point must system, with a point being deducted from the loser for every 5punch difference ie if you landed 10 more punches you win 20-18, 15 more punches 20-17 and so on, but then with a bit a discretion from the judges to allow for quality of punches, ring generalship etc, and kds (which have no scoring benefit in amateur boxing)

Nice idea hh, but most of these guys struggle with spelling their own names on the cards... And you want them to count punches?!

milkyboy wrote:Nice idea hh, but most of these guys struggle with spelling their own names on the cards... And you want them to count punches?!

yeah your probably right, given that bad decisions were just as frequent in the amateur system as the pros, in hindsight my idea sucks.

Ha, think mine probably sucks too. Maybe we just need judges who understand boxing and aren't in the promoter's pocket.

milkyboy wrote:
I think more liberal use of say 10-7 for a battering. 10-8 for a well won round and 10-9 for a close one, would mean the 'right' man would win more often. However, that's not the basis for boxing which is about number of rounds won, not how well they are won.

I agree with this view, but, as I mentioned earlier, more room for interpretation gives more room for the justification of corrupt judging.

Looks like I'm in the minority........still believe you shouldn't win two thirds of a fight and draw..

But fairplay.......Thanks for the opinions..