sharpei_louis wrote:
To remove my option to do that would definitely misrepresent the score, as if I have to give a round to a guy when I don't really think he won it, it negates every clear round I give in the other direction. I don't think that's fair.
That argument doesn't stack up. The 10pt must system doesn't reflect if rounds or close or clear (with the exception of 10-8s etc). So for example fighter A could get off to a flyer and absolutely box fighter B's head off for 3 rounds, landing many hurtful shots while only taking the odd jab back. But for the next 3 rounds they could be razor close rounds with fighter B perhaps just shading it by landing 1 or 2 more eyecatching jabs or potshots. So through 6 you got it 57-57. It's not exactly "fair" in the sense that it doesn't reflect the first guys far more dominant rounds and the fight is now level, but that's just how the scoring system is designed. Given your logic you would be incluned to give the closer rounds 10-10 so not to negate fighter A's clearer rounds.
No, each round is scored individually on its own merit. What happened in previous rounds should have no bearing whatsoever.
But I do agree it's a bit strange that the system doesn't allow more scope for scoring dominant rounds in a different way to rounds where one fighter just edges it.
sharpei_louis wrote:
To remove my option to do that would definitely misrepresent the score, as if I have to give a round to a guy when I don't really think he won it, it negates every clear round I give in the other direction. I don't think that's fair.
That argument doesn't stack up. The 10pt must system doesn't reflect if rounds or close or clear (with the exception of 10-8s etc). So for example fighter A could get off to a flyer and absolutely box fighter B's head off for 3 rounds, landing many hurtful shots while only taking the odd jab back. But for the next 3 rounds they could be razor close rounds with fighter B perhaps just shading it by landing 1 or 2 more eyecatching jabs or potshots. So through 6 you got it 57-57. It's not exactly "fair" in the sense that it doesn't reflect the first guys far more dominant rounds and the fight is now level, but that's just how the scoring system is designed. Given your logic you would be incluned to give the closer rounds 10-10 so not to negate fighter A's clearer rounds.
No, each round is scored individually on its own merit. What happened in previous rounds should have no bearing whatsoever.
But I do agree it's a bit strange that the system doesn't allow more scope for scoring dominant rounds in a different way to rounds where one fighter just edges it.
Each round being scored on its own merit was part of the point i was making. Louis was getting at not picking in a close round as it would essential undo a round the other guy wins clear.
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
There should be more 10-10 rounds scored, it gives a far better reflection of how a fight unfolded if you score the very close rounds as 10-10, as this then puts more emphasis on rounds that were won emphatically.
On the contrary. 10-10 rounds are cop outs and lead to crap cards. Haye for instance on Sky i'm sure had 10-10 for both round 1 & 3, robbing Chisora of 2 points.
I read an interview with Tom Shrek once explaining why they are instructed not to give 10-10's. I searched for it but no hit, i'll look it again later. Instrad i came across this on reddit which pretty much sums it up though:
Only in the rarest of circumstances should this be used, I've personally never scored a 10-10 round. I think it's kind of a cop-out people use who are having a hard time judging a fight. If you apply all of the judging criteria to any given round you can pick a winner.
The times I've spoken with people who scored rounds 10-10, it's been because they weren't able to identify a winner in the round (IE, not because there wasn't a winner). In my opinion this speaks more to their inability to pick up on the nuances in the ring and accurately apply the judging criteria. They felt because a round was close, it could be 10-10. Rarely have I ever found this the case, there is always something one fighter does better, be it effective aggression, ring generalship, defense ext. Remember, there's more to judging then just effective aggression, if both fighters are being equally effectively aggressive, move on to the next set of criteria. If you do this, you'll find a winner to the round.
If you as a judge can't pick a winner of a round, then subjectively there wasn't a winner to the round. That's why we have three judges, to try to iron out subjectivity as much as possible.
Yeah - there is always something one fighter does better, but there may be something else that the other fighter does better. It's a matter of preference then which skillset you prefer. Or if you feel it was even, you can call a 10-10 round. Yeah when I'm scoring I look to pick a winner in a round, but I like that I can call a round even if I genuinely see it like that. To remove my option to do that would definitely misrepresent the score, as if I have to give a round to a guy when I don't really think he won it, it negates every clear round I give in the other direction. I don't think that's fair.
Don't try and tell me I'm therefore blind and unable to identify the winner of a round, it is a choice to score it even as much as it is a choice to give the round to either guy.
I entirely agree with this, if you are having to force yourself to pick a winner, there shouldn't a winner.
Just rewatched the fight, I had Whyte winning 115-113.
Chisora had the edge after 8 rounds, and did very well with his aggression and big flurries of punches, but I felt like over the last 4 rounds he had gassed himself out a bit too much, and that allowed Whyte to do just enough to eke out the last 4 rounds and the fight on my card.
The 10-pt must system means you can't score a 9-9 round, that's really the crux of the rule - you're allowed to score a dominant round 10-8 if you believe it was sufficiently dominant, that's in the rulebook but is rare and needs a strong justification for doing so in my mind.
Basically my criteria for judging is this...
10 points to the winner of a round, 9 pts to the loser, or 8 points if they've been clearly dominated.
One point off for being knocked down, or as directed by the ref for a foul.
I've scored 10-10s where the fighter who clearly won a round takes a flash knockdown or a point off.
The majority of rounds I pick a winner and score 10-9, but in close fights there are rounds I can't instinctively pick a winner - in those rounds I don't force myself to, and call it even 10-10. If you say I can't do that, it will influence my scoring of the fight as a whole and may result in the wrong winner of the fight.
I'm working to the 10 point must system - I'm not sure you are? I wasn't saying I won't pick a winner in a close round as it would negate a dominant round, I'm saying I won't pick a winner in a round I honestly feel was even. That's completely different.
Ultimately the aim of scoring a fight, and of the system, is that the winner is fair. If you are telling me you've never seen an even round then maybe we just differ fundamentally. Which brings be back to the point of having three judges.
And to bring it back on topic, there were rounds in this fight where I liked Chisora's pressure and big shots, but felt that Whyte's workrate was higher and he picked his punches well in the pocket. There were definitely a couple of even rounds on my card in this fight, although I'd have to re-watch to tell you which. I'm not saying I scored many even.
Whyte seemed to do more of the crisper work, whereas Chisora landed some of the more telling shots. From a scoring perspective I could see little in it so no complaints with the result.
Rewatched it tonight. wheras before I watched it, didn't score it. but thought Chisora took it.
Tonight I scored it and had Del winning by a round. No complaints about the result. Fantastic fight. I would actually like these two to go off and have some other fights. Isn't Whyte now in line for Wilder, with all the failed tests and whatever? He should go for that. That sets up Joshua nicely if Whye loses, and if he wins he's just taken out one of AJ's biggest threats ready to be smashed to bits again.
Would Chisora Ortiz make any sense?
Based on current form and skillset, they will both probably lose those two fights, but will continue to enhance their reputations with bravery to take on the best and plucky showings. The rematch is always there down the line, and I'm sure the winner of that will make some good money as a voluntary stay busy defence provided he gets past Klitschko and Haye in his two stadium fights in 2017.
Whyte was behind for the most part but the last 4/5 round's Chisora seemed to take more time to start throwing the more they got to the business end of the fight it was very close but I had Whyte scraping home 115/114
youngrell wrote:
Scorecards very rarely have 10-10s because we very rarely see 50/50 contests. I see nothing wrong with scoring a round 10-10, especially in a fight which was close like Whyte v Chisora. It's not ideal, but it is fair in some instances.
There should be more 10-10 rounds scored, it gives a far better reflection of how a fight unfolded if you score the very close rounds as 10-10, as this then puts more emphasis on rounds that were won emphatically.
On the contrary. 10-10 rounds are cop outs and lead to crap cards. Haye for instance on Sky i'm sure had 10-10 for both round 1 & 3, robbing Chisora of 2 points.
I read an interview with Tom Shrek once explaining why they are instructed not to give 10-10's. I searched for it but no hit, i'll look it again later. Instrad i came across this on reddit which pretty much sums it up though:
Only in the rarest of circumstances should this be used, I've personally never scored a 10-10 round. I think it's kind of a cop-out people use who are having a hard time judging a fight. If you apply all of the judging criteria to any given round you can pick a winner.
The times I've spoken with people who scored rounds 10-10, it's been because they weren't able to identify a winner in the round (IE, not because there wasn't a winner). In my opinion this speaks more to their inability to pick up on the nuances in the ring and accurately apply the judging criteria. They felt because a round was close, it could be 10-10. Rarely have I ever found this the case, there is always something one fighter does better, be it effective aggression, ring generalship, defense ext. Remember, there's more to judging then just effective aggression, if both fighters are being equally effectively aggressive, move on to the next set of criteria. If you do this, you'll find a winner to the round.
This sounded like a potentially interesting interview, so I Googled it.
It's by a user called effective_aggression on a reddit thread. In that thread, most of the other posters seem to disagree with him (or her, I suppose). No idea if they are an actual judge or not, but it's not quite the kind of quote Wikipedia would accept.
I had it for Chisora by a point with one 10-10 round, but I could definitely see how people scored it for Whyte.
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
There should be more 10-10 rounds scored, it gives a far better reflection of how a fight unfolded if you score the very close rounds as 10-10, as this then puts more emphasis on rounds that were won emphatically.
On the contrary. 10-10 rounds are cop outs and lead to crap cards. Haye for instance on Sky i'm sure had 10-10 for both round 1 & 3, robbing Chisora of 2 points.
I read an interview with Tom Shrek once explaining why they are instructed not to give 10-10's. I searched for it but no hit, i'll look it again later. Instrad i came across this on reddit which pretty much sums it up though:
Only in the rarest of circumstances should this be used, I've personally never scored a 10-10 round. I think it's kind of a cop-out people use who are having a hard time judging a fight. If you apply all of the judging criteria to any given round you can pick a winner.
The times I've spoken with people who scored rounds 10-10, it's been because they weren't able to identify a winner in the round (IE, not because there wasn't a winner). In my opinion this speaks more to their inability to pick up on the nuances in the ring and accurately apply the judging criteria. They felt because a round was close, it could be 10-10. Rarely have I ever found this the case, there is always something one fighter does better, be it effective aggression, ring generalship, defense ext. Remember, there's more to judging then just effective aggression, if both fighters are being equally effectively aggressive, move on to the next set of criteria. If you do this, you'll find a winner to the round.
This sounded like a potentially interesting interview, so I Googled it.
It's by a user called effective_aggression on a reddit thread. In that thread, most of the other posters seem to disagree with him (or her, I suppose). No idea if they are an actual judge or not, but it's not quite the kind of quote Wikipedia would accept.
I had it for Chisora by a point with one 10-10 round, but I could definitely see how people scored it for Whyte.
The quote i was actually searching for was an interview with judge Tom Shrek, who mentions they discourage 10-10's. Have a bash at finding that if you can.
On the contrary. 10-10 rounds are cop outs and lead to crap cards. Haye for instance on Sky i'm sure had 10-10 for both round 1 & 3, robbing Chisora of 2 points.
I read an interview with Tom Shrek once explaining why they are instructed not to give 10-10's. I searched for it but no hit, i'll look it again later. Instrad i came across this on reddit which pretty much sums it up though:
This sounded like a potentially interesting interview, so I Googled it.
It's by a user called effective_aggression on a reddit thread. In that thread, most of the other posters seem to disagree with him (or her, I suppose). No idea if they are an actual judge or not, but it's not quite the kind of quote Wikipedia would accept.
I had it for Chisora by a point with one 10-10 round, but I could definitely see how people scored it for Whyte.
The quote i was actually searching for was an interview with judge Tom Shrek, who mentions they discourage 10-10's. Have a bash at finding that if you can.
Yes, I remember this, it was actually tom I corresponded with not Jerry Roth, he said that personally he would like to score more even rounds, but that the commission didn't like it, and they penalised judges who did so.
