Jump to content

10-8 rounds when no knockdown - do you score them?


WelshDevilRob
 Share

Recommended Posts

After watching the Maidana vs Khan clash, alot of people scored the 10th for Maidana as 10-8, as he dominated the round though didn't score a knockdown.

 

I personally scored it 10-9, as I don't like scoring 10-8 unless a knockdown occurs but I see why people do it and why its become abit of a 'norm'.

 

So, do you score the 10-8 when no knockdown occurs or not and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the 10 point must system as it's never used properly. Each of the judges appear to have scored it 10-8 and I did, though I would have been tempted to do the same for the 11th. Domination and hurting the opponent needs to be considered, as does activity.

 

I scored the 11th for Khan. Not alot happened first half of round but Khan won the 2nd half from what I watched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a fighter clearly wins the round and batters his foe from pillar to post, knockdown or no knockdown, it's a 10-8 round for me.

 

This is where I can see it as debatable - I agree completely that Maidana battered Khan and in a sense should be rewarded but at the sametime Khan didn't take the easy route and take a knee, like fighters in the past have done, to recover or get a breather.

 

I almost see the 10-8 as punishing Khan for staying on his feet. Its a tough one.

 

In the BillyC Paltalk room I asked when the 10-8 got introduced and I think it was Lee Groves that said it was after the Leonard vs Hearns 1 fight, as there were rounds that Leonard battered Hearns but was still miles behind on the cards. Can anyone clarify if it happened after that or was it at a different time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10-8 round has been around for a long time, I can't remember when it first came into use. There is one thing to bear in mind though, a 10-8 score can be given whether or not a knockdown is scored. Also, a fighter scoring a knockdown, but losing the rest of the round, can also only win the round via a 10-9 score.

 

10-8 is never an automatic score, although some erroneously believe it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10-8 round has been around for a long time, I can't remember when it first came into use. There is one thing to bear in mind though, a 10-8 score can be given whether or not a knockdown is scored. Also, a fighter scoring a knockdown, but losing the rest of the round, can also only win the round via a 10-9 score.

 

10-8 is never an automatic score, although some erroneously believe it to be.

 

I think the problem is that we generally see them scored as 10-8's, you could easily make a case for the opening round to have been a 10-9 to Khan (he was wobbled early on and had been hit a few times by heavy shots).

 

Rob Khan was outlanded almost 2-1 (compubox) in round 11, he threw less than half as many, and actually threw the fewest punches of the fight in that rou8nd (for either fighter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10-8 round has been around for a long time, I can't remember when it first came into use. There is one thing to bear in mind though, a 10-8 score can be given whether or not a knockdown is scored. Also, a fighter scoring a knockdown, but losing the rest of the round, can also only win the round via a 10-9 score.

 

10-8 is never an automatic score, although some erroneously believe it to be.

 

I think the problem is that we generally see them scored as 10-8's, you could easily make a case for the opening round to have been a 10-9 to Khan (he was wobbled early on and had been hit a few times by heavy shots).

 

Rob Khan was outlanded almost 2-1 (compubox) in round 11, he threw less than half as many, and actually threw the fewest punches of the fight in that rou8nd (for either fighter).

 

Compubox? Don't do a Jim Lampley on me. grin// Maybe my eyesite is going but he controlled the 2nd half of the round more. Statistics don't tell the whole story. I could just be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i never score 10-8 unless there's a KD. For example, what if the guy beats him from pillar to post AND scores a KD? Then do we score it 10-7?

 

Yeah I do exactly the same, and also I've seen some people scoring a round even or just 10-9 where the other guy has controlled the majority of the round but gets knocked down.

A knockdown is a 10-8 round, to the guy delivering it, regardless of how the rest of the round went, unless there were other KD's imo.

If a fighter is going all out attack and neglecting his defence and gets caught open, then he's basically thrown away the round, and the scores should reflect that.

 

I've seen a few rounds in fights where one fighter has been so dominant, you'd like to give them a 10-8, but if either they can't find the telling punch or their opponent is able to withstand the onslaught, then I'd find it tough to give a 10-8 for anything other than a round involving a knockdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i never score 10-8 unless there's a KD. For example, what if the guy beats him from pillar to post AND scores a KD? Then do we score it 10-7?

 

Yeah I do exactly the same, and also I've seen some people scoring a round even or just 10-9 where the other guy has controlled the majority of the round but gets knocked down.

A knockdown is a 10-8 round, to the guy delivering it, regardless of how the rest of the round went, unless there were other KD's imo.

If a fighter is going all out attack and neglecting his defence and gets caught open, then he's basically thrown away the round, and the scores should reflect that.

 

I've seen a few rounds in fights where one fighter has been so dominant, you'd like to give them a 10-8, but if either they can't find the telling punch or their opponent is able to withstand the onslaught, then I'd find it tough to give a 10-8 for anything other than a round involving a knockdown.

 

BB how did you score the opening round of Pacquiao v Marquez I?

Personally I can see the logic behind 10-9 even if a fighter gets knocked down, especially with some of the very poor knock down calls we've seen. I can see the logic of a 10-7 too, the problem is the 10 point must system is very very flawed. A close 10-9 shouldn't be worth the same as a dominant round, a round separated by 1 or 2 punches shouldn't have the same value as a round where one fighters toys with another, stuns them, has them retreating, holding on for deer life and covering up to survive.

 

Dodgy scoring as well as dodgy stoppages turn people away from the sport and it's irritating when the scoring is unforgivably bad (Campillo v Shumenov II).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i never score 10-8 unless there's a KD. For example, what if the guy beats him from pillar to post AND scores a KD? Then do we score it 10-7?

 

Yeah I do exactly the same, and also I've seen some people scoring a round even or just 10-9 where the other guy has controlled the majority of the round but gets knocked down.

A knockdown is a 10-8 round, to the guy delivering it, regardless of how the rest of the round went, unless there were other KD's imo.

If a fighter is going all out attack and neglecting his defence and gets caught open, then he's basically thrown away the round, and the scores should reflect that.

 

I've seen a few rounds in fights where one fighter has been so dominant, you'd like to give them a 10-8, but if either they can't find the telling punch or their opponent is able to withstand the onslaught, then I'd find it tough to give a 10-8 for anything other than a round involving a knockdown.

 

BB how did you score the opening round of Pacquiao v Marquez I?

Personally I can see the logic behind 10-9 even if a fighter gets knocked down, especially with some of the very poor knock down calls we've seen. I can see the logic of a 10-7 too, the problem is the 10 point must system is very very flawed. A close 10-9 shouldn't be worth the same as a dominant round, a round separated by 1 or 2 punches shouldn't have the same value as a round where one fighters toys with another, stuns them, has them retreating, holding on for deer life and covering up to survive.

 

Dodgy scoring as well as dodgy stoppages turn people away from the sport and it's irritating when the scoring is unforgivably bad (Campillo v Shumenov II).

 

3 KD's should be a 10-6 round imo.

 

The way I see it, if a fighter is good enough to totally dominate a single round, then he only has himself to blame if he's then going on to lose close rounds further in the fight.

Boxers should be encouraged to do more than 3mins work and think they've done enough to win a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, dodgy scoring is a totally different kettle of fish....

The main problem is that judges don't seem to have any real comeback for poor performances.

Some of them appear to be verging on blatant corruption and favouritism, but it doesn't prevent them from doing it all over again, at the expense of some other robbed fighter days or weeks later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i never score 10-8 unless there's a KD. For example, what if the guy beats him from pillar to post AND scores a KD? Then do we score it 10-7?

 

Yeah I do exactly the same, and also I've seen some people scoring a round even or just 10-9 where the other guy has controlled the majority of the round but gets knocked down.

A knockdown is a 10-8 round, to the guy delivering it, regardless of how the rest of the round went, unless there were other KD's imo.

If a fighter is going all out attack and neglecting his defence and gets caught open, then he's basically thrown away the round, and the scores should reflect that.

 

I've seen a few rounds in fights where one fighter has been so dominant, you'd like to give them a 10-8, but if either they can't find the telling punch or their opponent is able to withstand the onslaught, then I'd find it tough to give a 10-8 for anything other than a round involving a knockdown.

 

BB how did you score the opening round of Pacquiao v Marquez I?

Personally I can see the logic behind 10-9 even if a fighter gets knocked down, especially with some of the very poor knock down calls we've seen. I can see the logic of a 10-7 too, the problem is the 10 point must system is very very flawed. A close 10-9 shouldn't be worth the same as a dominant round, a round separated by 1 or 2 punches shouldn't have the same value as a round where one fighters toys with another, stuns them, has them retreating, holding on for deer life and covering up to survive.

 

Dodgy scoring as well as dodgy stoppages turn people away from the sport and it's irritating when the scoring is unforgivably bad (Campillo v Shumenov II).

 

3 KD's should be a 10-6 round imo.

 

The way I see it, if a fighter is good enough to totally dominate a single round, then he only has himself to blame if he's then going on to lose close rounds further in the fight.

Boxers should be encouraged to do more than 3mins work and think they've done enough to win a fight.

 

What if the dominant fighter just has no power? He uses his opponents head like a speed ball but can't drop them? Or what if the other bloke just has an iron chin, that shouldn't stop a fighter from scoring a dominant 10-8 round IMO.

 

Totally dominante 6 rounds, have 6 close rounds, and yet only getting a draw (Juarez v John I), is that "fair"? I know most complained like crazy but John only "clearly" won the opening 6, the latter 6 you could make a case for either fighter, the judges preferring Juarez's case whilst the fans didn't. It's the big flaw in the 10 points must.

Also what is worth more flashy but powerless combinations or thunder power that doesn't put the opponent down but has them on jelly legs?

 

Dodgy scoring is a problem further down but comes from the same thing, close rounds being scored the same as dominant rounds, every close round effectively has a 2 point swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i never score 10-8 unless there's a KD. For example, what if the guy beats him from pillar to post AND scores a KD? Then do we score it 10-7?

 

Yeah I do exactly the same, and also I've seen some people scoring a round even or just 10-9 where the other guy has controlled the majority of the round but gets knocked down.

A knockdown is a 10-8 round, to the guy delivering it, regardless of how the rest of the round went, unless there were other KD's imo.

If a fighter is going all out attack and neglecting his defence and gets caught open, then he's basically thrown away the round, and the scores should reflect that.

 

I've seen a few rounds in fights where one fighter has been so dominant, you'd like to give them a 10-8, but if either they can't find the telling punch or their opponent is able to withstand the onslaught, then I'd find it tough to give a 10-8 for anything other than a round involving a knockdown.

 

BB how did you score the opening round of Pacquiao v Marquez I?

Personally I can see the logic behind 10-9 even if a fighter gets knocked down, especially with some of the very poor knock down calls we've seen. I can see the logic of a 10-7 too, the problem is the 10 point must system is very very flawed. A close 10-9 shouldn't be worth the same as a dominant round, a round separated by 1 or 2 punches shouldn't have the same value as a round where one fighters toys with another, stuns them, has them retreating, holding on for deer life and covering up to survive.

 

Dodgy scoring as well as dodgy stoppages turn people away from the sport and it's irritating when the scoring is unforgivably bad (Campillo v Shumenov II).

 

3 KD's should be a 10-6 round imo.

 

The way I see it, if a fighter is good enough to totally dominate a single round, then he only has himself to blame if he's then going on to lose close rounds further in the fight.

Boxers should be encouraged to do more than 3mins work and think they've done enough to win a fight.

 

What if the dominant fighter just has no power? He uses his opponents head like a speed ball but can't drop them? Or what if the other bloke just has an iron chin, that shouldn't stop a fighter from scoring a dominant 10-8 round IMO.

 

Totally dominante 6 rounds, have 6 close rounds, and yet only getting a draw (Juarez v John I), is that "fair"? I know most complained like crazy but John only "clearly" won the opening 6, the latter 6 you could make a case for either fighter, the judges preferring Juarez's case whilst the fans didn't. It's the big flaw in the 10 points must.

Also what is worth more flashy but powerless combinations or thunder power that doesn't put the opponent down but has them on jelly legs?

 

Dodgy scoring is a problem further down but comes from the same thing, close rounds being scored the same as dominant rounds, every close round effectively has a 2 point swing.

 

If a fighter simply has no power, and isn't hurting his opponent, then is it right to give him a dominant 10-8 round, even though the opponent is walking through all the shots and not hurt once?

I think the impact you make on your opponent should be the main factor in deciding a 10-8 round, and the opposing side is where a guy can win most of a round, but then be wobbled badly by a single shot...most judges would favour the guy who actually hurt his opponent.

Where a fighter dominates a round AND wobbles his opponent badly, then that's the referees job to administer a standing 8-count, and therefore make it a 10-8 round, even though he's not been dropped.

 

As for the 6 close rounds vs 6 dominant rounds being a draw, I do agree with you that there should be a distinction, but you also have to ask where was the dominance in the other 6 rounds? Again, it's the fighters own fault, as boxing is (usually) a 12 round sport, so you can't expect to win a fight by fighting for 6 rounds, and then taking your foot off the gas, and failing to see it through.

 

Most problems I've seen with the 10 point must system, is just where the judges have got it wrong.

I don't think there's a whole lot wrong with the system itself, more just the guys who are using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i never score 10-8 unless there's a KD. For example, what if the guy beats him from pillar to post AND scores a KD? Then do we score it 10-7?

 

Yeah I do exactly the same, and also I've seen some people scoring a round even or just 10-9 where the other guy has controlled the majority of the round but gets knocked down.

A knockdown is a 10-8 round, to the guy delivering it, regardless of how the rest of the round went, unless there were other KD's imo.

If a fighter is going all out attack and neglecting his defence and gets caught open, then he's basically thrown away the round, and the scores should reflect that.

 

I've seen a few rounds in fights where one fighter has been so dominant, you'd like to give them a 10-8, but if either they can't find the telling punch or their opponent is able to withstand the onslaught, then I'd find it tough to give a 10-8 for anything other than a round involving a knockdown.

 

BB how did you score the opening round of Pacquiao v Marquez I?

Personally I can see the logic behind 10-9 even if a fighter gets knocked down, especially with some of the very poor knock down calls we've seen. I can see the logic of a 10-7 too, the problem is the 10 point must system is very very flawed. A close 10-9 shouldn't be worth the same as a dominant round, a round separated by 1 or 2 punches shouldn't have the same value as a round where one fighters toys with another, stuns them, has them retreating, holding on for deer life and covering up to survive.

 

Dodgy scoring as well as dodgy stoppages turn people away from the sport and it's irritating when the scoring is unforgivably bad (Campillo v Shumenov II).

 

3 KD's should be a 10-6 round imo.

 

The way I see it, if a fighter is good enough to totally dominate a single round, then he only has himself to blame if he's then going on to lose close rounds further in the fight.

Boxers should be encouraged to do more than 3mins work and think they've done enough to win a fight.

 

What if the dominant fighter just has no power? He uses his opponents head like a speed ball but can't drop them? Or what if the other bloke just has an iron chin, that shouldn't stop a fighter from scoring a dominant 10-8 round IMO.

 

Totally dominante 6 rounds, have 6 close rounds, and yet only getting a draw (Juarez v John I), is that "fair"? I know most complained like crazy but John only "clearly" won the opening 6, the latter 6 you could make a case for either fighter, the judges preferring Juarez's case whilst the fans didn't. It's the big flaw in the 10 points must.

Also what is worth more flashy but powerless combinations or thunder power that doesn't put the opponent down but has them on jelly legs?

 

Dodgy scoring is a problem further down but comes from the same thing, close rounds being scored the same as dominant rounds, every close round effectively has a 2 point swing.

 

If a fighter simply has no power, and isn't hurting his opponent, then is it right to give him a dominant 10-8 round, even though the opponent is walking through all the shots and not hurt once?

I think the impact you make on your opponent should be the main factor in deciding a 10-8 round, and the opposing side is where a guy can win most of a round, but then be wobbled badly by a single shot...most judges would favour the guy who actually hurt his opponent.

Where a fighter dominates a round AND wobbles his opponent badly, then that's the referees job to administer a standing 8-count, and therefore make it a 10-8 round, even though he's not been dropped.

 

As for the 6 close rounds vs 6 dominant rounds being a draw, I do agree with you that there should be a distinction, but you also have to ask where was the dominance in the other 6 rounds? Again, it's the fighters own fault, as boxing is (usually) a 12 round sport, so you can't expect to win a fight by fighting for 6 rounds, and then taking your foot off the gas, and failing to see it through.

 

The standing 8 isn't allowed in many places so the referee simply isn't allowed to use them. Is boxing about skill or landing the hail mary? If it's about skill and a guy lands shot after shot after shot whilst the other guy does nothing (Clottey v Pacquiao) is it fair to give the guy doing nothing 9 points? It seems to be a reward for not fighting.

 

The dominence might not have been there because the other bloke was fresher and competitive but tired noticeably, it could have been been that the "loser" was just a slow starter who takes 6 rounds to get competitive, or even if the "loser" was only able to fight well every other round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i never score 10-8 unless there's a KD. For example, what if the guy beats him from pillar to post AND scores a KD? Then do we score it 10-7?

 

Yeah I do exactly the same, and also I've seen some people scoring a round even or just 10-9 where the other guy has controlled the majority of the round but gets knocked down.

A knockdown is a 10-8 round, to the guy delivering it, regardless of how the rest of the round went, unless there were other KD's imo.

If a fighter is going all out attack and neglecting his defence and gets caught open, then he's basically thrown away the round, and the scores should reflect that.

 

I've seen a few rounds in fights where one fighter has been so dominant, you'd like to give them a 10-8, but if either they can't find the telling punch or their opponent is able to withstand the onslaught, then I'd find it tough to give a 10-8 for anything other than a round involving a knockdown.

 

BB how did you score the opening round of Pacquiao v Marquez I?

Personally I can see the logic behind 10-9 even if a fighter gets knocked down, especially with some of the very poor knock down calls we've seen. I can see the logic of a 10-7 too, the problem is the 10 point must system is very very flawed. A close 10-9 shouldn't be worth the same as a dominant round, a round separated by 1 or 2 punches shouldn't have the same value as a round where one fighters toys with another, stuns them, has them retreating, holding on for deer life and covering up to survive.

 

Dodgy scoring as well as dodgy stoppages turn people away from the sport and it's irritating when the scoring is unforgivably bad (Campillo v Shumenov II).

 

3 KD's should be a 10-6 round imo.

 

The way I see it, if a fighter is good enough to totally dominate a single round, then he only has himself to blame if he's then going on to lose close rounds further in the fight.

Boxers should be encouraged to do more than 3mins work and think they've done enough to win a fight.

 

What if the dominant fighter just has no power? He uses his opponents head like a speed ball but can't drop them? Or what if the other bloke just has an iron chin, that shouldn't stop a fighter from scoring a dominant 10-8 round IMO.

 

Totally dominante 6 rounds, have 6 close rounds, and yet only getting a draw (Juarez v John I), is that "fair"? I know most complained like crazy but John only "clearly" won the opening 6, the latter 6 you could make a case for either fighter, the judges preferring Juarez's case whilst the fans didn't. It's the big flaw in the 10 points must.

Also what is worth more flashy but powerless combinations or thunder power that doesn't put the opponent down but has them on jelly legs?

 

Dodgy scoring is a problem further down but comes from the same thing, close rounds being scored the same as dominant rounds, every close round effectively has a 2 point swing.

 

If a fighter simply has no power, and isn't hurting his opponent, then is it right to give him a dominant 10-8 round, even though the opponent is walking through all the shots and not hurt once?

I think the impact you make on your opponent should be the main factor in deciding a 10-8 round, and the opposing side is where a guy can win most of a round, but then be wobbled badly by a single shot...most judges would favour the guy who actually hurt his opponent.

Where a fighter dominates a round AND wobbles his opponent badly, then that's the referees job to administer a standing 8-count, and therefore make it a 10-8 round, even though he's not been dropped.

 

As for the 6 close rounds vs 6 dominant rounds being a draw, I do agree with you that there should be a distinction, but you also have to ask where was the dominance in the other 6 rounds? Again, it's the fighters own fault, as boxing is (usually) a 12 round sport, so you can't expect to win a fight by fighting for 6 rounds, and then taking your foot off the gas, and failing to see it through.

 

The standing 8 isn't allowed in many places so the referee simply isn't allowed to use them. Is boxing about skill or landing the hail mary? If it's about skill and a guy lands shot after shot after shot whilst the other guy does nothing (Clottey v Pacquiao) is it fair to give the guy doing nothing 9 points? It seems to be a reward for not fighting.

 

The dominence might not have been there because the other bloke was fresher and competitive but tired noticeably, it could have been been that the "loser" was just a slow starter who takes 6 rounds to get competitive, or even if the "loser" was only able to fight well every other round.

 

 

You have to consider that some endurance fighters purposely use tactics like this, to make their opponent punch themselves out and then come strong down the straight in search of a knockout.

It's a risky tactic, and one that doesn't always work, but their main objective is to get their opponent out late and finish inside the distance.

A fighter doing nothing deserves nothing, but when the other guy isn't able to take advantage of them doing nothing, and just throws flurries of non-hurtful punches, then the converse argument is did THEY do enough to warrant a 10-8?

I would say not.

 

You're right about the standing 8 count. If a fighter wobbles his opponent then a good referee will just stand back and let the fighter try to make it count on their own, but it is scenarios like that, that it was brought in for.

 

In the very very rare event that a fight is 6 rounds even, but one of the fighters was dominant over 6 to the point that some could be viewed as a 10-8, then I would only use it to split them, where there were no knockdowns.

 

This is a one in a million shot though, and I'd still lay some of the blame at the dominant fighters door for failing to see through the fight, and I'd prefer to split them by awarding closer rounds as 10-10, than giving 10-8, where they're failing to capitalise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tricky one, but I only score 10-8 if there is a knock down.

 

What's the position if two fighters knock each other down. With it being a 10 point must sytem I'm assuming that if the round is even, then one would score it 10-10. And then, if the boxers knock each other down, but one edges the round how is that scored - 10-9 or 10-8 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tricky one, but I only score 10-8 if there is a knock down.

 

What's the position if two fighters knock each other down. With it being a 10 point must sytem I'm assuming that if the round is even, then one would score it 10-10. And then, if the boxers knock each other down, but one edges the round how is that scored - 10-9 or 10-8 ?

 

If both fighters score a knockdown you ignore the knock down for the terms of the 10 point must

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tricky one, but I only score 10-8 if there is a knock down.

 

What's the position if two fighters knock each other down. With it being a 10 point must sytem I'm assuming that if the round is even, then one would score it 10-10. And then, if the boxers knock each other down, but one edges the round how is that scored - 10-9 or 10-8 ?

 

If both fighters score a knockdown you ignore the knock down for the terms of the 10 point must

 

Cheers.

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...