Jump to content

Help on Scoring a round please


WelshDevilRob
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seen a post or two about 10-8 rounds and looked into it and 10-8 doesn't have to be scored, if the fighter dropped was winning the round.

When a knockdown happens, how do you score a round?

I've had a look at BBBoC rules and it seems that a round doesn't have to be scored 10-8. When was this brought in, in general?

Also, I was under the impression that boxing used a 10-point must system. But, am seeing posts about 9-9 can be used. Is this wrong or right?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Smartass said:

happened last night in the Tank fight, he put Ryan down in round 2 but was 2nd best throughout, one judge gave 10-8, one 10-10 and the other 10-9 I heard on the commentary; personally I see the sense in the 10-10, although the accepted is  a 10-8 round

 

I must be a dinosaur, always go 10-8. But, read the BBBoC rules and the examples you gave are fine. Any idea when that happened, I missed it being pissed lol.

Anyway, got some guy telling me 9-9 is ok but I'm asking him for an example, while I say it's a 10 point must system. He gives me the Fury vs Wilder card official score sheet, no sign of 9-9. Point that out to him and he is explaining to me how it's 'technically' 9-9. I can't believe these people. One has to have 10, that's the rules.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Smartass said:

if its a drawn round I guess it makes no difference, the true impact comes when its marked for the winner of the round, ive always found it odd that someone can potentially be dominating a round, be flash knocked down and then lose the round 10-8  

Can see what you mean, in a flash knockdown situation. I've always gone 10-8. Craziest fight to score is Lemieux vs N'Dam. N'Dam kept going down but the other rounds he was winning lol.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9-9 would be when the winner of the round is penalized a point. 10-9 becomes 9-9. Whether or not a knockdown is required for a round to be scored 10-8 varies by jurisdiction. It depends on to what degree the commission gives its judges discretion. Some commissions don't give their judges much freedom and tell them the winner gets 10-9 in the absence of a knockdown; each knockdown is worth a point, i.e. 10-7 for two knockdowns etc. Where judges are free to exercise their discretion, a fighter would have to dominate a round in which he was knocked down to only have it scored 10-9 against him rather than 10-8. It also depends on the severity of the knockdown. When judges' discretion is involved, there are endless ways a judge could measure one round vs. another and award 10-8 in a non-knockdown where it was distinguishable from a more closely contested round. It highlights the limitations of the 10-point must scoring system. We've all seen rounds in fights where one was more dominant than another but where judges are given strict guidelines they're limited to 10-9 in the absence of a knockdown. But it's also a slippery slope. If you've scored a non-knockdown round 10-8, where do you go if there is a knockdown? 10-7? There are arguments for both approaches. Do we trust judges are sophisticated enough to exercise sensible and fair discretion when comparing non-knockdown rounds? Decades of evidence suggests that may be a pipedream.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ledhed1 said:

 But it's also a slippery slope. If you've scored a non-knockdown round 10-8, where do you go if there is a knockdown? 10-7? There are arguments for both approaches. Do we trust judges are sophisticated enough to exercise sensible and fair discretion when comparing non-knockdown rounds? Decades of evidence suggests that may be a pipedream.

You would only be scoring 10-8 a in a round without a knockdown if it had been completely dominated, so the 10-7 wouldnt really come into play.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mofo2 said:

You would only be scoring 10-8 a in a round without a knockdown if it had been completely dominated, so the 10-7 wouldnt really come into play.

What I mean is, if there's a subsequent round with a knockdown, since you've already scored a non-knockdown round 10-8, do you score the knockdown round 10-7? How do you distinguish rounds once you've established 10-8 with no knockdown? As I said, once you grant judges the freedom to exercise discretion, there's a myriad of factors and you may paint yourself into a corner once you establish a standard. Then if something different happens later in the fight, you're stuck having to distinguish several different types of rounds. Thus some commissions keep it simple and require a knockdown for 10-8. The flipside is the limitations on the 10-point must system I mentioned thus the desire for freedom to score based on perceived margin of one fighter over another in any particular round. An acceptable level of consistency in scoring would be difficult to achieve.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ledhed1 said:

What I mean is, if there's a subsequent round with a knockdown, since you've already scored a non-knockdown round 10-8, do you score the knockdown round 10-7? How do you distinguish rounds once you've established 10-8 with no knockdown? As I said, once you grant judges the freedom to exercise discretion, there's a myriad of factors and you may paint yourself into a corner once you establish a standard. Then if something different happens later in the fight, you're stuck having to distinguish several different types of rounds. Thus some commissions keep it simple and require a knockdown for 10-8. The flipside is the limitations on the 10-point must system I mentioned thus the desire for freedom to score based on perceived margin of one fighter over another in any particular round. An acceptable level of consistency in scoring would be difficult to achieve.

I think judges already have the discretion to mark, its just an opportunity to adjust marking accordingly for certain kinds of one sided rounds that have everything but a knockdown, I do see your point but adjusting the approach wouldnt become part of the norm, just more likely to be used under exceptional circumstances, the conistency in marking is already an issue, for me we need to be looking at how we can reward a fighter when he has stepped up to the mark instead of penalising if he gets put on his ass when he is absolutely dominating a round

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...