How Do You Score This Round ?

[ikorolev]

10-10

[dookus]

If always wondered why it wasn't 9-9 surely before the knockdown it's 10-9 to fighter A then knockdown fighter A loses a point for a knockdown but wins the round should be 9-9

A 10-point must system makes things confusing, I was thinking the same way you are..


Your from Wales? I am a die-hard Calzaghe fan, the legend

Ye from Swansea not too far from calzaghes about an hour and a bit

10-10 if fighter A was winning before the knockdown and continued to win afterwards. It makes no sense to disproportionately reward one punch, especially where the knockdown is a flash knockdown or an off-balance knockdown.

And to say that shouldn't be penalised for one punch if. You get knocked down you get deducted a point 9-9 makes more sense to me

Yes, but it's called the 10-point must system. One fighter must score ten, so 9-9 isn't possible without the ref deducting a point. The solution lies in the fact that a fighter doesn't lose a point automatically when knocked down (it is in fact discretionary, although recommended) which allows the judge to score it 10-10.

A good recent example of this was Freddie Flintoff winning his pro fight 30-27 despite getting floored in the 2nd round - it was scored 10-10.

[crusader]

I disagree with much of that. I take each criterion to assessed on everything that occurred in the round, meaning that dropping someone is just one part of a wider set of considerations. The fighter who scored the knockdown may have had the most effective instance of aggression, but that doesn't mean that on balance they were superior in terms of effective aggression. To analogize, should we chose teams of boxers and use overall BoxRec points to decide which is best, it wouldn't necessarily be the team of the boxer with the most points.

Do you think a fighter who lands a good punch, unarguably the best punch of a round, should win that round even if it's the only punch they land; it doesn't drop, seriously hurt, or cut their opponent; and the opponent lands 20 power shots and 30 jabs in the same round? The fighter who landed 1 punch would still have the most effective instance of punching and aggression, defense that allows someone to land that good of a punch was not effective, and I'm sure being hit with such a good punch was not part of the opponent's plan.

The conversation is about a round where a guy who was clearly losing the round scored a knockdown at the end.
I posted how I score THAT scenario and why.
A knockdown is indeed only one part of the round but it is an important enough event in that round to trump everything the other guy did.
You're talking about a different situation, the scoring rules are still the same but who does or does not win the round differs based on what actually happens.

Ok, but you were being asked why the knockdown trumps all else and the logic you employed (e.g. fighter B had the most effective instance of aggression so they get the nod on the effective aggression criterion) to defend your scoring in the OP's situation can easily be used to score the round for the fighter who landed one punch in the hypothetical I posted.

What if dropped fighter A outlanded fighter B 100-1, hurt them several times without dropping them, and landed at 75% while the latter connected at 5%? Still a 10-9 round for fighter B just because of a flash knockdown?

[Cloutov]

I d score it 9-9 has fighter A won the round 10-9 and gets a point deduction for the knock down.

[tiny_acres]

It is a 10 point MUST system.The winner of the round Must receive 10 points

[Cloutov]

It is a 10 point MUST system.The winner of the round Must receive 10 points

False
What if fighter A scores 2 KD and fighter B scores 1
Its 9-8

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You're confusing knockdowns with fouls. If fighter A went down 5 times and fighter B went down 4 times, the winner of the round would still have 10 points.

[tiny_acres]

It is a 10 point MUST system.The winner of the round Must receive 10 points

False
What if fighter A scores 2 KD and fighter B scores 1
Its 9-8

You find me a round where the winner did not receive 10 points barring a points deduction from the ref.

The rules are clear

[Perseus]

I disagree with much of that. I take each criterion to assessed on everything that occurred in the round, meaning that dropping someone is just one part of a wider set of considerations. The fighter who scored the knockdown may have had the most effective instance of aggression, but that doesn't mean that on balance they were superior in terms of effective aggression. To analogize, should we chose teams of boxers and use overall BoxRec points to decide which is best, it wouldn't necessarily be the team of the boxer with the most points.

Do you think a fighter who lands a good punch, unarguably the best punch of a round, should win that round even if it's the only punch they land; it doesn't drop, seriously hurt, or cut their opponent; and the opponent lands 20 power shots and 30 jabs in the same round? The fighter who landed 1 punch would still have the most effective instance of punching and aggression, defense that allows someone to land that good of a punch was not effective, and I'm sure being hit with such a good punch was not part of the opponent's plan.

The conversation is about a round where a guy who was clearly losing the round scored a knockdown at the end.
I posted how I score THAT scenario and why.
A knockdown is indeed only one part of the round but it is an important enough event in that round to trump everything the other guy did.
You're talking about a different situation, the scoring rules are still the same but who does or does not win the round differs based on what actually happens.

Ok, but you were being asked why the knockdown trumps all else and the logic you employed (e.g. fighter B had the most effective instance of aggression so they get the nod on the effective aggression criterion) to defend your scoring in the OP's situation can easily be used to score the round for the fighter who landed one punch in the hypothetical I posted.

What if dropped fighter A outlanded fighter B 100-1, hurt them several times without dropping them, and landed at 75% while the latter connected at 5%? Still a 10-9 round for fighter B just because of a flash knockdown?

Now you're just being ridiculous.
Show me an example of any round getting even remotely close to 100-1 before being stopped.

In the scenario presented by the OP the fighter who gets dropped loses the round period.
The knockdown is the key to scoring this hypothetical round, it trumps every bit of good work fighter A accomplished.

Taking away the knockdown changes the whole situation.
Can a single punch that does not drop him win the round?
I need to know how bad fighter A was hurt. Was he put in "survival mode" by the punch or did he take it well?
It may win fighter B the round it may not.

[crusader]

It's just a hypothetical. How would you score the round giving your scoring logic?

Obviously that is an extreme example, but I think it involves the same issue of giving the knockdown too much weight as less extreme examples would. In my view knockdowns are generally weighted too heavily relative to success that doesn't involve knockdowns, and I believe defaulting to scoring the round for the boxer who drops their opponent improperly devalues the success the opponent may have had.

[Tony1244]

To try and answer my own question, I'd likely score it 10-8 for fighter B, because I've been programmed to score a round with 1 knockdown in it 10-8. But if fighter A was clearly winning the round with less than a minute to go, I should probably score it 10-9 for fighter B, as a knockdown perhaps is more relevant in a pro match than winning most of a round.

[Sweet P]

10-9. To the guy who knocked down his opponent.

If it was a real beating for 2.50 and I was going to score it a possible 10-8 I might give it 10-10. Although in the 300 odd fights I've judged I'm yet to see that happen.

[tiny_acres]

I think after reading this topic.We now know who's opinion to listen to about a scorecard.
And who's we should not.

[uptconnect]

I agree with those who said that we each individually believe that we score more correctly than anyone else.
You're all doing it wrong if your cards don't match my own. My scores are always correct.


That being said, my score in that scenario would depend on who I was watching and how I was feeling at the time.

[Tony1244]

I agree with those who said that we each individually believe that we score more correctly than anyone else.
You're all doing it wrong if your cards don't match my own. My scores are always correct.


That being said, my score in that scenario would depend on who I was watching and how I was feeling at the time.

There have been some blatant robberies in boxing. RJJ in South Korea comes to mind. But most "robberies" aren't robberies. I thought Jimmy Young was robbed against Ali when I watched it as a kid. After watching it recently? Not so much. Leonard-Hagler, many thought was a robbery. The guy who had it 118-110 Leonard was "The biggest crook of all-time." But all those rounds were close, and you choose whose style you like.

I agree totally, I have scored the same fight somewhat differently by "How I was feeling at the time."

[ScottDetonator]

A lot to take in with variables but I'd say it's a 10-8 round to fighter B. It only takes one punch for a fight to end regardless of the performances before.

Fighter A could be well ready to be stopped at the start of the next round although we don't know with it only be theoretical situation, maybe someone can find a good example of it actually happening?

[the rat]

It's 10-9 to fighter B. If fighter A was convincingly winning the round until that point. Based on a 10 point must, Fighter B won the round because of the knockdown but was losing the round until the point of the knockdown.

IMHO a fighter that goes down can't win the round, so 10-9 for fighter B and you have to reward him for the Knockdown that's the main purpose in boxing of putting your opponent down

[Tony1244]

IMHO a fighter that goes down can't win the round, so 10-9 for fighter B and you have to reward him for the Knockdown that's the main purpose in boxing of putting your opponent down[/quote]

That's pretty much what I'm going with, so long as fighter A clearly won the rest of the round.

[crusader]

A fighter who was getting dominated for 2:50 but scores a KD is also being rewarded if you score the round even just due to that one instance. If they weren't being rewarded they would lose the round because they were dominated for the overwhelming majority of it.

I don't see why someone who scores a KD should virtually always be rewarded more than someone who had far more sustained success (e.g. 2:50 of dominance vs one punch).

[Evander]

Fighter A is completely shutting out Fighter B with 10 seconds to go in the round.

Fighter B lands one clean punch that knocks Fighter A down.

Fighter A