Scoring with knockdowns and points deductions

[davie]

I've just gone back and watched the Coyle vs Brizuela fight.
I was wondering, in a round where one fighter is knocked down once and deducted a point and his opponent hits the canvas twice, how would you score that.
Jim Watt had it (round 11) 10-9, there was another couple of rounds where there was more than one incident where a point would be lost and Jims card didn't reflect that.
can someone explain?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jl-aXg5y3U

[Datsue]

I've just gone back and watched the Coyle vs Brizuela fight.
I was wondering, in a round where one fighter is knocked down once and deducted a point and his opponent hits the canvas twice, how would you score that.
Jim Watt had it (round 11) 10-9, there was another couple of rounds where there was more than one incident where a point would be lost and Jims card didn't reflect that.
can someone explain?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jl-aXg5y3U

Under the "ten point must" system, the winner of the round "MUST" get 10 points, so you call the winner's total 10 even if it would be 8 or whatever & adjust the loser's tally accordingly.

Much like other practises involving boxing scoring (ten point must system you say? Let's only use three of them, at most!) it is needlessly fvcking stupid, possibly for the benefit of Septics.

[olij999]

I've just gone back and watched the Coyle vs Brizuela fight.
I was wondering, in a round where one fighter is knocked down once and deducted a point and his opponent hits the canvas twice, how would you score that.
Jim Watt had it (round 11) 10-9, there was another couple of rounds where there was more than one incident where a point would be lost and Jims card didn't reflect that.
can someone explain?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jl-aXg5y3U

Under the "ten point must" system, the winner of the round "MUST" get 10 points, so you call the winner's total 10 even if it would be 8 or whatever & adjust the loser's tally accordingly.

Much like other practises involving boxing scoring (ten point must system you say? Let's only use three of them, at most!) it is needlessly fvcking stupid, possibly for the benefit of Septics.

Not quite correct (at least based on how it works in Britain - may be different in other countries). Under the 10-point must system in Britain, the exception is if there is a point deducted, as in that case both fighters can receive less than 10. So:

(a) if fighter A wins the round, scores a knockdown but gets a point deducted as well, that would be scored 9-8.

(b) if fighter A wins the round, scores a knockdown but also suffers a knockdown himself, that would be scored 10-9 (as the one-point advantage for each knockdown cancels out)

(c) (to answer davie's question), if fighter A wins the round, scores two knockdowns but is deducted a point deducted as well, and fighter B scores one knockdown, then one knockdown each cancels out. So that is the equivalent of fighter A wins the round, scores one knockdowns but is deducted a point deducted, i.e. same case as (a) above.

But the main point is you still have to decide who has won the round - no such thing as an automatic 10-8 round. In most cases, a fighter who scores a KD will win the round (due to pressure before the KD or pressure afterwards) but it is not necessarily the case. There is nothing in British rules or the BBBofC Referee's Guide saying that there is an automatic 10-8 round, and indeed the Guide makes it clear that there is no such thing. So if you hear commentators on British fights refer to "an automatic 10-8 round", then they don't know what they are talking about.

As an aside, there's a nice "pocket guide" for EBU judges at http://www.boxebu.biz/#!judges-pocket-reminder/c49t which I thought was quite good and is an interesting insight into what judges in European title fights are looking for.

Hope that helps, anyway.

[expe]

The first two knockdowns would cancel each other out, then the fighter that scored the extra knockdown would likely win the round 10-8. However the point deduction then takes a point off so it would be scored 10(-1)-8, effectively 9-8. Even if neither fighter comes out with 10 points, one has to have been scored 10 points initially, before the deduction.

[Datsue]

Under the "ten point must" system, the winner of the round "MUST" get 10 points, so you call the winner's total 10 even if it would be 8 or whatever & adjust the loser's tally accordingly.

Much like other practises involving boxing scoring (ten point must system you say? Let's only use three of them, at most!) it is needlessly fvcking stupid, possibly for the benefit of Septics.

Not quite correct (at least based on how it works in Britain - may be different in other countries). Under the 10-point must system in Britain, the exception is if there is a point deducted, as in that case both fighters can receive less than 10. So:

(a) if fighter A wins the round, scores a knockdown but gets a point deducted as well, that would be scored 9-8.

(b) if fighter A wins the round, scores a knockdown but also suffers a knockdown himself, that would be scored 10-9 (as the one-point advantage for each knockdown cancels out)

(c) (to answer davie's question), if fighter A wins the round, scores two knockdowns but is deducted a point deducted as well, and fighter B scores one knockdown, then one knockdown each cancels out. So that is the equivalent of fighter A wins the round, scores one knockdowns but is deducted a point deducted, i.e. same case as (a) above.

But the main point is you still have to decide who has won the round - no such thing as an automatic 10-8 round. In most cases, a fighter who scores a KD will win the round (due to pressure before the KD or pressure afterwards) but it is not necessarily the case. There is nothing in British rules or the BBBofC Referee's Guide saying that there is an automatic 10-8 round, and indeed the Guide makes it clear that there is no such thing. So if you hear commentators on British fights refer to "an automatic 10-8 round", then they don't know what they are talking about.

As an aside, there's a nice "pocket guide" for EBU judges at http://www.boxebu.biz/#!judges-pocket-reminder/c49t which I thought was quite good and is an interesting insight into what judges in European title fights are looking for.

Hope that helps, anyway.

Ah, thanks mate. I looked it up, & it appears I'm quoting the American unified rules.

The minutiae of it does my head in sometimes. Thank you for your corrections.

[olij999]

Under the "ten point must" system, the winner of the round "MUST" get 10 points, so you call the winner's total 10 even if it would be 8 or whatever & adjust the loser's tally accordingly.

Much like other practises involving boxing scoring (ten point must system you say? Let's only use three of them, at most!) it is needlessly fvcking stupid, possibly for the benefit of Septics.

Not quite correct (at least based on how it works in Britain - may be different in other countries). Under the 10-point must system in Britain, the exception is if there is a point deducted, as in that case both fighters can receive less than 10. So:

(a) if fighter A wins the round, scores a knockdown but gets a point deducted as well, that would be scored 9-8.

(b) if fighter A wins the round, scores a knockdown but also suffers a knockdown himself, that would be scored 10-9 (as the one-point advantage for each knockdown cancels out)

(c) (to answer davie's question), if fighter A wins the round, scores two knockdowns but is deducted a point deducted as well, and fighter B scores one knockdown, then one knockdown each cancels out. So that is the equivalent of fighter A wins the round, scores one knockdowns but is deducted a point deducted, i.e. same case as (a) above.

But the main point is you still have to decide who has won the round - no such thing as an automatic 10-8 round. In most cases, a fighter who scores a KD will win the round (due to pressure before the KD or pressure afterwards) but it is not necessarily the case. There is nothing in British rules or the BBBofC Referee's Guide saying that there is an automatic 10-8 round, and indeed the Guide makes it clear that there is no such thing. So if you hear commentators on British fights refer to "an automatic 10-8 round", then they don't know what they are talking about.

As an aside, there's a nice "pocket guide" for EBU judges at http://www.boxebu.biz/#!judges-pocket-reminder/c49t which I thought was quite good and is an interesting insight into what judges in European title fights are looking for.

Hope that helps, anyway.

Ah, thanks mate. I looked it up, & it appears I'm quoting the American unified rules.

The minutiae of it does my head in sometimes. Thank you for your corrections.

No worries - think it does everyone's head in at some point!!

[roy]

It seems anomalous that a boxer losing a round can effectively gain 3 points from a flash knockdown, whereas a boxer winning a round would only gain 1 extra point.

[Yes We Can]

Deductions should be in a separate column. All deductions should be made at the end of a bout.

[olij999]

It seems anomalous that a boxer losing a round can effectively gain 3 points from a flash knockdown, whereas a boxer winning a round would only gain 1 extra point.

That would only happen if there were automatic 10-8 rounds, i.e. if a boxer losing a round 10-9 could suddenly "convert" it to a 10-8 round by scoring a knockdown. In reality, if a boxer was winning a round 10-9 but suffered a flash knockdown, it could well be scored 10-10. Good example of that kind of thing was Dave McAuley v Rodolfo Blanco (first fight) where McAuley was down 4 times, Blanco once, but McAuley still won on points (entirely rightly, in my view). That was because McAuley could outbox an opponent for 2:45, get knocked down as if short-circuited, get back up and carry on where he left off, and I think the judges scored a couple of those rounds 10-10.