Difficult rounds to Score

I was watching a highlights show recently which showed most of round 11 of Coyle v Brizuela and it occurred to me that, perhaps due to my limited knowledge of the rules with scoring, I had no idea how to actually score that round. Here's a summary of what happened:

1. The opening seconds saw some even exchanges.
2. Brizuela lands a left to the body which backs Coyle up to the ropes. He lands a couple more and down goes Tommy.
3. He gets up and puts Brizuela over with the first punch he throws.
4. Coyle follows up with a further flurry and puts Brizuela down again.
5. Brizuela gets up and Coyle goes for the kill only to be penalised for hitting on the break. He's deducted one point.
6. Coyle continues to apply pressure and is the aggressor for the remainder of the round but Brizuela survives to hear the bell.

This summary is mainly from recollection (I can't access You Tube) so if there are any glaring omissions/incorrect recollections please say. Anyway, my method of scoring would be as follows:

1. Brizuela scores a knockdown which, if no further significant action took place, would give him a 10-8 round.
2. Coyle responds in kind which evens things back up to 10-10 at this point.
3. Coyle adds a further knockdown which puts him at a 10-8 advantage.
4. He's deducted a point so that still has him winning the round at 9-8.

Is this method of scoring correct? There were some crazy rounds in that fight and I don't ever remember actually seeing the scorecards so if anybody knows what they were I'd be interested to see them !

Cheers

8-8? As you lose a point for each knockdown? Cracking fight, pretty much creamed myself when he somehow found that big right hand after getting dropped!

I remember Paul Smith saying his scorecard looked like a sudoku puzzle after all the knock downs and points deductions. Tickled me.

I may well me wrong, but I was under the impression it was a ten round must system. Meaning at least one person should score a 10. So without the deduction this is is 10 - 8 round to coyle. But the point deduction supersedes the 10 point must rule leaving the final round scores at 9 - 8 to Coyle. Sounds a fantastic round though.

After the knockdowns and deduction it would be sitting at 8-8, I think. If a judge deemed one to have done the better work then it could be scored 8-7.

2 knock downs a piece means it's 8-8, then you get to decide which fighter had the stronger round, and award it 7-8 in their favour.

Sorry it was a knock down and a deduction vs 2 knock downs. 

What I should have posted was.....as trottb said^^

Jim Watt scored it 10-9 and that's all you need to know .

CallMeBenji wrote:I was watching a highlights show recently which showed most of round 11 of Coyle v Brizuela and it occurred to me that, perhaps due to my limited knowledge of the rules with scoring, I had no idea how to actually score that round. Here's a summary of what happened:

1. The opening seconds saw some even exchanges.
2. Brizuela lands a left to the body which backs Coyle up to the ropes. He lands a couple more and down goes Tommy.
3. He gets up and puts Brizuela over with the first punch he throws.
4. Coyle follows up with a further flurry and puts Brizuela down again.
5. Brizuela gets up and Coyle goes for the kill only to be penalised for hitting on the break. He's deducted one point.
6. Coyle continues to apply pressure and is the aggressor for the remainder of the round but Brizuela survives to hear the bell.

This summary is mainly from recollection (I can't access You Tube) so if there are any glaring omissions/incorrect recollections please say. Anyway, my method of scoring would be as follows:

1. Brizuela scores a knockdown which, if no further significant action took place, would give him a 10-8 round.
2. Coyle responds in kind which evens things back up to 10-10 at this point.
3. Coyle adds a further knockdown which puts him at a 10-8 advantage.
4. He's deducted a point so that still has him winning the round at 9-8.

Is this method of scoring correct? There were some crazy rounds in that fight and I don't ever remember actually seeing the scorecards so if anybody knows what they were I'd be interested to see them !

Cheers

Havent seen the fight, But would have it at 10-9, or 9-8

jimdig wrote:2 knock downs a piece means it's 8-8, then you get to decide which fighter had the stronger round, and award it 7-8 in their favour.

that means 10-10, guy with stronger round gets 10-9, e.g. Maidana vs Ortiz round 1, where both scored KD, in an even round, but Maidana's KD of ortiz was the heavier of the two, so Maidana should get that round as 10-9

No it doesn't, KO King.

I agree with KO king- the system is called the ten point must system , which surely means you must award the winner ten points and the loser a proportional smaller number, if a fighter wins all ten he must get a score of 100, regardless of whether he suffers any KDs.

The term 'ten point must' is a misnomer, I think, as you can score rounds 9-9, 9-8 and so on as per the rules. Can see why it causes a lot of confusion though and why, as KO King and Horizontal have said above, people would find it easiest to just stick to that theory.

I believe that when he was the Chairman of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, Chuck Minker altered their approach to scoring by saying that in the cases of rounds like the eleventh in Brizuela-Coyle, judges can use a bit of interpretation and discretion, which means different judges could have scored it different ways (and likewise, it's the same reason we've produced so many different scores for that round here). One judge might score it 9-8, another 8-8 etc without being 'wrong' if you see what I mean.

Minker was quite respected and some of his ideas (such as mandating his appointed judges to sit through a fight with him afterwards and explain why they scored a certain round / fight to a fighter if there had been some controversy about a decision) caught on, and I believe it's become a sort of unwritten rule that judges can use a bit of discretion in the case of such rounds. Could be wrong on that front, but that's my understanding of it.

10-9, 9-8, 8-7, it's all the same thing.

... It is to my postman


I had it 8-8. Interesting that none of us, the judges, the commentators, the fighters, etc know the rules

To my knowledge, which admittedly cedes to everybody else's here on this matter (or it did until Milky posted), while it is accepted, and even customary for a knockdown to lead to point deduction, it isn't in and of itself a fait accompli. An example I suppose, would be the Pacquiao-Marquez I fight, where the one judge scored the first round 10-7, instead of 10-6. An appeal found no love because he called it as he saw it, I suppose. So if there are two knockdown a piece, it's really up to judge. All things being equal, 10-10 or 8-8 aren't going to change the price of bread

And a happy new year to you too raf

Compliments to you to Milky. Currently in Cape Town on holiday, think the oxygen overload is making me moody

kingraf wrote:An example I suppose, would be the Pacquiao-Marquez I fight, where the one judge scored the first round 10-7, instead of 10-6. An appeal found no love because he called it as he saw it,

The appeal court as Manny's team which rounds he won after the first two.........Apparently !!

They were laughing when they threw it out..

Aah Trussy... can't say I've missed you. At all. In the slightest.

kingraf wrote:An example I suppose, would be the Pacquiao-Marquez I fight, where the one judge scored the first round 10-7, instead of 10-6. An appeal found no love because he called it as he saw it, I suppose.

Strange one that, raf. Pretty sure the judge in question said afterwards that he had gone in there under the impression that they weren't allowed to score a round any wider than 10-7 and hinted that, if he'd been aware that they were under no such instruction, he'd have scored it 10-6 which would have given Pacquiao the win outright. Seen quotes from the judge (his name escapes me) saying that he viewed his 10-7 score as a mistake and that he "dropped the ball," most of them provided to the site by D4 back in the day!

Similar thing in the Corrales-Mayweather fight. Mayweather puts Corrales down three times in the seventh, all three of them clear and indisputable knockdowns, but Lederman scores the round 10-7 rather than 10-6. Afterwards, he explains this by saying something along the lines of, "I'm not going to go any wider than 10-7 for that round, and a lot of judges won't score a round any wider than that even if there are three knockdowns, because it just takes the other guy (who was knocked down) too far out of the picture and makes them fall too far behind."

See, to me I'd just think that's tough luck, and if you don't want a 10-6 round against you, don't get knocked down three times. Don't see why the other fella shouldn't be properly rewarded for being so effective - but from discussions I've seen on the issue, a lot of people disagree with me.

Indeed Chris. The ref admitted to having ballsed it up. I was more alluding to the fact that it couldn't be "rectified", nor did NSAC allude to it having been an incorrect scoring method, as evidence that point deductions, and by definition, point tallying is a rather fluid idea, with guidelines, but like all things boxing, rules set in sand on a rainy day, rather than stone.

kingraf wrote:Aah Trussy... can't say I've missed you. At all. In the slightest.

I was having a good christmas and new year till you wrote that !!

It was said with love. If that makes you feel better.

88Chris05 wrote:

kingraf wrote:An example I suppose, would be the Pacquiao-Marquez I fight, where the one judge scored the first round 10-7, instead of 10-6. An appeal found no love because he called it as he saw it, I suppose.

Strange one that, raf. Pretty sure the judge in question said afterwards that he had gone in there under the impression that they weren't allowed to score a round any wider than 10-7 and hinted that, if he'd been aware that they were under no such instruction, he'd have scored it 10-6 which would have given Pacquiao the win outright. Seen quotes from the judge (his name escapes me) saying that he viewed his 10-7 score as a mistake and that he "dropped the ball," most of them provided to the site by D4 back in the day!

Similar thing in the Corrales-Mayweather fight. Mayweather puts Corrales down three times in the seventh, all three of them clear and indisputable knockdowns, but Lederman scores the round 10-7 rather than 10-6. Afterwards, he explains this by saying something along the lines of, "I'm not going to go any wider than 10-7 for that round, and a lot of judges won't score a round any wider than that even if there are three knockdowns, because it just takes the other guy (who was knocked down) too far out of the picture and makes them fall too far behind."

See, to me I'd just think that's tough luck, and if you don't want a 10-6 round against you, don't get knocked down three times. Don't see why the other fella shouldn't be properly rewarded for being so effective - but from discussions I've seen on the issue, a lot of people disagree with me.

Wow that is absolutely crazy that they won't score a round further than 10-7 as it takes someone too far out of the fight. They would score 3 knockdowns if they were in separate rounds so why not in the same round?

A fighter is better off getting knocked down 3 times in one round rather than having it spread across 3 rounds from a scoring point of view as you should be at a 10-6 disadvantage with 11 rounds to make up for it rather than a 30-24 disadvantage with only 9 rounds to make up for it. You can't just ignore knockdowns to give the other guy a chance, it really just wouldn't happen in any other sport. You didn't see the referee in the world cup semi final stop awarding Germany goals against Brazil just to keep it even.

I thought the ref did, and that's why Germany stopped at seven? Could have scored twenty that night, and that's no exaggeration.

bellchees wrote: A fighter is better off getting knocked down 3 times in one round rather than having it spread across 3 rounds from a scoring point of view as you should be at a 10-6 disadvantage with 11 rounds to make up for it rather than a 30-24 disadvantage with only 9 rounds to make up for it

Someone important needs to read this

Whether people agree with it or not, fundamental to the principle if boxing scoring is that it's about an accumulation of individual 'stanzas'... each round is a mini fight. Its who wins the most rounds not necessarily who had the better overall. Hence you have fights like macklin sturm where everyone thinks macklin won because he win his rounds dominantly but round by round it was tight. If you let one round influence a fight too much... Pac Marquez being a very good example...has the right man won? In terms of boxing scoring principles where it's meant to be 'who won the most rounds' at least?

The convention to award additional points for knockdowns to some degree goes against that scoring principle ( that it's the number if rounds won, not how well they are won), but regardless, its generally easier to score multiple knock downs in one round than it is in separate rounds, so I can see the argument that maybe you shouldn't over egg the pudding in any one round.

We've done the argument as to whether the best man always wins with the 10 point must system, even if its scored correctly. Not saying I agree with it, but I can see an argument to 'capping' the score in any one round.

I would have personally scored the first round 10-7 to Pacquiao, I don't think the knockdowns were heavy enough to warrant a 10-6 round and as Milky said does one very good round mean more than four dominant rounds?

Got to admire the nerve of Paccy....Gets outclassed....Gets a gift draw and then tries to get it overturned....

Moron screws JMM at least twice and cries about Bradley 1...

Leave it out..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would have personally scored the first round 10-7 to Pacquiao, I don't think the knockdowns were heavy enough to warrant a 10-6 round and as Milky said does one very good round mean more than four dominant rounds?

Problem is it doesn't have to be 4 dominant rounds, you could have pretty close rounds with soft knock downs and every judge would score it 10-8.

If Pacquiao spread those knock downs over the first 3 rounds it would have been scored 30-24 even though the knockdowns weren't heavy.

Yes silly Paccy not to look for a knockdown in every round.....

Agree with the consensus.....................10-6 is too generous...........

Then again I reckon two judges really scored the first round 10-2...........

Can't think of any other reason he got a draw out of that schooling...

Manny said he respected the judges decision after Bradley 1.

I bet he didn't in private..