There must be a winner of every round

[roy]

is IMO a flawed policy. The myth goes that a good judge should be able to find a winner in every round. But surely even someone who knows nothing about boxing can score a close round; because you can argue that they are right however they score it. The important thing is that the judges get the right winner of the clear rounds. I am not advocating that they should sit on the fence but, in close rounds, judges will tend to opt for the style they prefer (and will therefore award all,or most, of the close rounds to the same boxer) thereby causing big discrepancies in the scoring.

[the4thlion]

0-10
10 Point Must System
In the 10 Point Must System of scoring a fight the winner of a round must receive 10 points. The loser of a round will receive from 9 to 6 points. A close round: 10-9. One knockdown: 10-8. Two knockdowns: 10-7. Three knockdowns: 10-6. No knockdown but one fighter completely dominates round: 10-8. Can't pick a winner: 10-10.

[Jeff Thomas]

How about :

10-9 close round
10-8 one sided round
10-7 round with one knockdown
10-6 two knockdowns

etc etc

[dondada]

Good thread. I think it's seen as weakness by some to call an even round and that's wrong. I think it could be done more often (with the present system).

[Mensa07]

I'm a firm believer in the 10-10 round. For me there's got to be a clear winner of the round for it to be 10-9.

Too many rounds are scored 10-9 when they're actually even rounds, but the scorer makes a snap decision at the end of the round due to a late flurry, or even worse on some kind of whim, like he feels he 'must' pick a winner so just goes with who he thinks is meant to be the better fighter, etc.

My method for scoring is I break each round down into the three minutes. I make a mental note who won the first minute, then the second, then at the end of the round I'll either have a 3-0 / 2-1 winner of the round or a majority draw 10-10 round. It prevents any sugar ray leonard type flurries from taking the 10 points when for the other 2:50 of the round he actually did feck all.

[roy]

I'm a firm believer in the 10-10 round. For me there's got to be a clear winner of the round for it to be 10-9.

Too many rounds are scored 10-9 when they're actually even rounds, but the scorer makes a snap decision at the end of the round due to a late flurry, or even worse on some kind of whim, like he feels he 'must' pick a winner so just goes with who he thinks is meant to be the better fighter, etc.

My method for scoring is I break each round down into the three minutes. I make a mental note who won the first minute, then the second, then at the end of the round I'll either have a 3-0 / 2-1 winner of the round or a majority draw 10-10 round. It prevents any sugar ray leonard type flurries from taking the 10 points when for the other 2:50 of the round he actually did feck all.

I take your point but, if boxer A wins the first minute by 10 punches and loses the next by 2 and the last by 3, who would you give the round to?

[Mensa07]

I'm a firm believer in the 10-10 round. For me there's got to be a clear winner of the round for it to be 10-9.

Too many rounds are scored 10-9 when they're actually even rounds, but the scorer makes a snap decision at the end of the round due to a late flurry, or even worse on some kind of whim, like he feels he 'must' pick a winner so just goes with who he thinks is meant to be the better fighter, etc.

My method for scoring is I break each round down into the three minutes. I make a mental note who won the first minute, then the second, then at the end of the round I'll either have a 3-0 / 2-1 winner of the round or a majority draw 10-10 round. It prevents any sugar ray leonard type flurries from taking the 10 points when for the other 2:50 of the round he actually did feck all.

I take your point but, if boxer A wins the first minute by 10 punches and loses the next by 2 and the last by 3, who would you give the round to?

I don't score by punch-count mate.

[clubberlang]

How about :

10-9 close round
10-8 one sided round
10-7 round with one knockdown
10-6 two knockdowns

etc etc

Exactly

With this scoring many a shit decision would have been avoided.

For example Chi vs Brodie I

On the ten point must system you could have had Chi winning the fight which would have been both correct and insane. When Brodie was winning the rounds he was kicking seven bells out of Chi, while In-Jin was narrowly stealing rounds.

[roy]

I'm a firm believer in the 10-10 round. For me there's got to be a clear winner of the round for it to be 10-9.

Too many rounds are scored 10-9 when they're actually even rounds, but the scorer makes a snap decision at the end of the round due to a late flurry, or even worse on some kind of whim, like he feels he 'must' pick a winner so just goes with who he thinks is meant to be the better fighter, etc.

My method for scoring is I break each round down into the three minutes. I make a mental note who won the first minute, then the second, then at the end of the round I'll either have a 3-0 / 2-1 winner of the round or a majority draw 10-10 round. It prevents any sugar ray leonard type flurries from taking the 10 points when for the other 2:50 of the round he actually did feck all.

I take your point but, if boxer A wins the first minute by 10 punches and loses the next by 2 and the last by 3, who would you give the round to?

I don't score by punch-count mate.

I know that every punch is not of equal value but, correct me if I'm wrong, the object of the game is to to land scoring punches.