How would you score this round? - You be the judge

[Frostieballs]

Despite my previous bluster 10-10 might make perfect sense.

Fighter B’s knockdown counteracts the fact he lost the round.

So it should be a level round. It’s a 10 point MUST, so that works.

[Coco]

Despite my previous bluster 10-10 might make perfect sense.

Fighter B’s knockdown counteracts the fact he lost the round.

So it should be a level round. It’s a 10 point MUST, so that works.

So it's only one point for the knockdown?
Surely if it's an even round and the one scores a knockdown its 10-8?
Or are you saying that you have to win the round plus the knockdown for a 10-8?

[Controversial]

Despite my previous bluster 10-10 might make perfect sense.

Fighter B’s knockdown counteracts the fact he lost the round.

So it should be a level round. It’s a 10 point MUST, so that works.

So it's only one point for the knockdown?
Surely if it's an even round and the one scores a knockdown its 10-8?
Or are you saying that you have to win the round plus the knockdown for a 10-8?

The poll opinions are interesting, found this below referencing Pac vs Cotto

https://www.ringtv.com/122349-when-does ... 0-8-round/

"Pacquiao scored a knock down in the third round. The HBO commentators and Harold Lederman scored that round 10-8 for Pacquiao because “Pacquiao knocked down Cotto.” Most fans and TV commentators automatically score a round 10-8 in favor of the fighter who scores the knockdown.

However, Judges Dave Moretti and Adalaide Byrd scored that round 10-9 for Pacquiao while Duane Ford scored it 10-8 for Pacquiao. Each of the judges' explanation of their score is what is important. Bear in mind that judging is very subjective and each judge's scores are based on that judge's philosophy.

Although two judges differed with the third judge in that third round, each was correct based on their philosophy and judgment.

The criteria for scoring a knock down is not based on the premise that the fighter who scores the knockdown automatically is awarded a 10-8. The correct criteria that is taught by Duane Ford in his ABC certification classes for boxing judges is:

If Fighter A is winning the round and scores a knockdown and continues to win the round after the knockdown, then Fighter A is awarded the round 10-8. However, if Fighter A is winning the round and gets knocked down by Fighter B, then Fighter B is awarded the round 10-9. The key is: Which fighter won the round without the knockdown? Thus, most fans and TV commentators are incorrect in automatically scoring a 10-8 round for a fighter who scores a knock down without taking into consideration who won the round without the knock down."

[Frostieballs]

Despite my previous bluster 10-10 might make perfect sense.

Fighter B’s knockdown counteracts the fact he lost the round.

So it should be a level round. It’s a 10 point MUST, so that works.

So it's only one point for the knockdown?
Surely if it's an even round and the one scores a knockdown its 10-8?
Or are you saying that you have to win the round plus the knockdown for a 10-8?

Yes defo only one point for the knockdown. If a round is even and there is a knockdown it’s a 10-9?

[Frostieballs]

Despite my previous bluster 10-10 might make perfect sense.

Fighter B’s knockdown counteracts the fact he lost the round.

So it should be a level round. It’s a 10 point MUST, so that works.

So it's only one point for the knockdown?
Surely if it's an even round and the one scores a knockdown its 10-8?
Or are you saying that you have to win the round plus the knockdown for a 10-8?

The poll opinions are interesting, found this below referencing Pac vs Cotto

https://www.ringtv.com/122349-when-does ... 0-8-round/

"Pacquiao scored a knock down in the third round. The HBO commentators and Harold Lederman scored that round 10-8 for Pacquiao because “Pacquiao knocked down Cotto.” Most fans and TV commentators automatically score a round 10-8 in favor of the fighter who scores the knockdown.

However, Judges Dave Moretti and Adalaide Byrd scored that round 10-9 for Pacquiao while Duane Ford scored it 10-8 for Pacquiao. Each of the judges' explanation of their score is what is important. Bear in mind that judging is very subjective and each judge's scores are based on that judge's philosophy.

Although two judges differed with the third judge in that third round, each was correct based on their philosophy and judgment.

The criteria for scoring a knock down is not based on the premise that the fighter who scores the knockdown automatically is awarded a 10-8. The correct criteria that is taught by Duane Ford in his ABC certification classes for boxing judges is:

If Fighter A is winning the round and scores a knockdown and continues to win the round after the knockdown, then Fighter A is awarded the round 10-8. However, if Fighter A is winning the round and gets knocked down by Fighter B, then Fighter B is awarded the round 10-9. The key is: Which fighter won the round without the knockdown? Thus, most fans and TV commentators are incorrect in automatically scoring a 10-8 round for a fighter who scores a knock down without taking into consideration who won the round without the knock down."

This would suggest by definition that if a fighter scored a knockdown, he is adjudged to have won the round (whether he did or not).

[Controversial]

So it's only one point for the knockdown?
Surely if it's an even round and the one scores a knockdown its 10-8?
Or are you saying that you have to win the round plus the knockdown for a 10-8?

The poll opinions are interesting, found this below referencing Pac vs Cotto

https://www.ringtv.com/122349-when-does ... 0-8-round/

"Pacquiao scored a knock down in the third round. The HBO commentators and Harold Lederman scored that round 10-8 for Pacquiao because “Pacquiao knocked down Cotto.” Most fans and TV commentators automatically score a round 10-8 in favor of the fighter who scores the knockdown.

However, Judges Dave Moretti and Adalaide Byrd scored that round 10-9 for Pacquiao while Duane Ford scored it 10-8 for Pacquiao. Each of the judges' explanation of their score is what is important. Bear in mind that judging is very subjective and each judge's scores are based on that judge's philosophy.

Although two judges differed with the third judge in that third round, each was correct based on their philosophy and judgment.

The criteria for scoring a knock down is not based on the premise that the fighter who scores the knockdown automatically is awarded a 10-8. The correct criteria that is taught by Duane Ford in his ABC certification classes for boxing judges is:

If Fighter A is winning the round and scores a knockdown and continues to win the round after the knockdown, then Fighter A is awarded the round 10-8. However, if Fighter A is winning the round and gets knocked down by Fighter B, then Fighter B is awarded the round 10-9. The key is: Which fighter won the round without the knockdown? Thus, most fans and TV commentators are incorrect in automatically scoring a 10-8 round for a fighter who scores a knock down without taking into consideration who won the round without the knock down."

This would suggest by definition that if a fighter scored a knockdown, he is adjudged to have won the round (whether he did or not).

Yes it does, personally to me it seems slightly unfair you can be dominated for 99% of the round and still win it based on scoring what could be a flash knockdown but thats how it is. Some judges give 10-8 rounds with no knockdowns, so you could also argue that Fighter A was winning the round 10-8 right until the end but with the knockdown its marked as still winning it 10-9

[jonp]

Seen a round exactly like that scored 10-10. Caused a bit of debate on here.

How? I've never seen a set of rules that allow that. Who were the sanctioning body

BBBOC A Star ref Steve Gray. Jonp and board official ollij both backed the ref, olli, quite in depth. Just tripe in “scoring Leeds” and it should come up. I don’t know how to link the thread.

A knockdown is worth 1 point a 10.8 round is usualy because a fighter is winning a round and scores a knockdown.If you are winning a round clearly you are winning that round 10.9. A flash knockdown is worth one point so if you score it against the run of play that gives one point.Because of the 10 point must system you cannot go 9.9 so a ten ten round is fair.
If someone is dominating a round and someone scores a knockdown and you automatically score it 10.8 that is saying the knockdown is worth 3 pts. If somebody is dominating a round and the opp scores a knockdown and you score it 10.9 thats saying the knockdown is worth two points on its own.
Now put it the other way if someone is winning a round 10.9 scores a knockdown if you score it as above where a single knockdown is worth 2 or even 3 points then most kncokdown rounds should be scored 10.7 or even 10.6.
Its not popular and rarelyapplied but a knockdown is actualy only worth 1 point winning the round thru the knockdown is where you get 10.8.
Its tricky but when you look at the actual proper rules for scoring its really a lot easier than youd think to get a 10.10 round for a knockdown round but it is very rarely applied.

[margaret thatcher]

thhat's the thing, there are actually a lot of possibilities going by the rules, but almost always in practice you get judges just defaulting to 10-8s no matter what

[Controversial]

This just goes to show why there can be so much controversy over scores.

Using my own scenario if there was no knockdown and Fighter A completely dominated from start to finish I would potentially give him the round 10-8. So with a knockdown against him to then reverse the score 9-10 is giving Fighter B three points for scoring a knockdown in a round he was losing. Or 4 points if you give it 8-10 as someone voted for.

I think the fairer score in that scenario is 10-9 to Fighter A or 10-10 draw.

[dookus]

Despite my previous bluster 10-10 might make perfect sense.

Fighter B’s knockdown counteracts the fact he lost the round.

So it should be a level round. It’s a 10 point MUST, so that works.

Exactly. Knockdowns are not the same as point deductions. It's a convention that a fighter who wins a round with a knockdown wins it 10-8, but it's not set in stone, and 10-9 is also possible (or even 10-10 in extreme cases).

Conversely you can win a round 10-8 without knocking your opponent down at all if you were dominant enough.

[jameswilson]

Despite my previous bluster 10-10 might make perfect sense.

Fighter B’s knockdown counteracts the fact he lost the round.

So it should be a level round. It’s a 10 point MUST, so that works.

Exactly. Knockdowns are not the same as point deductions. It's a convention that a fighter who wins a round with a knockdown wins it 10-8, but it's not set in stone, and 10-9 is also possible (or even 10-10 in extreme cases).

Conversely you can win a round 10-8 without knocking your opponent down at all if you were dominant enough.

Although watch the last round of Taylor v Persoon and then tell me what someone has to do to win 10-8 without a KD. Taylor was being battered in the last 30 seconds.

[keirw]

Fighter A wins the round so 10-9, but gets point deducted so becomes 9-9, however I heard all drawn rounds are scored 10-10.

So 10-10 or 9-9 doesn't really matter, as long as the round is even.

What about if fighter A bashes fighter B around the ring for 2 1/2 mins wobbling his opponent several times and looks very close to stopping him more than once, but then walks on to one at the end and gets up just before the end of the count?
Would anyone score the round 10-9 to fighter A?

[Controversial]

Fighter A wins the round so 10-9, but gets point deducted so becomes 9-9, however I heard all drawn rounds are scored 10-10.

So 10-10 or 9-9 doesn't really matter, as long as the round is even.

What about if fighter A bashes fighter B around the ring for 2 1/2 mins wobbling his opponent several times and looks very close to stopping him more than once, but then walks on to one at the end and gets up just before the end of the count?
Would anyone score the round 10-9 to fighter A?

You can score a round 10-8 without a knockdown, so what if it were so one sided you were going to score it 10-8 to Fighter A but then he gets dropped at the end, would that then be 10-9 for fighter A or would you effectively give fighter B 2 points back and score it 10-10?

Or as others are saying would you effectively give fighter B three points for a 9-10 score or four points for a 8-10 round?

[rhino222]

99% of professional boxing judges would score the fight 10-8 to fighter B.

[skanksta]

In this example it's clear that it's a totally dominant round winning performance from Fighter A so 10-8 commuted to 10-9 for the KD.

If it's a very clear win but not a 10-8 then 9-9.
Fighter wins 10-9 but loses one for the KD.

I know most KDs rounds are automatically 10-8 and I@m fine with that, but IF it's a really clear round win it should be scored as such. This should be the method used - it gives you the closest to the actual score and the boards' rules would seem to back it up.

[Controversial]

I know most KDs rounds are automatically 10-8

Yes and they shouldn’t always be in my opinion, otherwise you are ignoring everything the other fighter achieved in that round. Judges are there to score a fight so if there’s a blanket unwritten rule that forces a certain score then what’s the point of the judge watching.

[skanksta]

I know most KDs rounds are automatically 10-8

Yes and they shouldn’t always be in my opinion, otherwise you are ignoring everything the other fighter achieved in that round. Judges are there to score a fight so if there’s a blanket unwritten rule that forces a certain score then what’s the point of the judge watching.

Yeah, I'd like to see a lot more draws too.
Try and find a winner of course - but there shouldn't be a taboo about 10-10s. More 10-10s and more 10-8s too ! They don't have to be thrown out like confetti, but it would make for better scoring.

[dookus]

Despite my previous bluster 10-10 might make perfect sense.

Fighter B’s knockdown counteracts the fact he lost the round.

So it should be a level round. It’s a 10 point MUST, so that works.

Exactly. Knockdowns are not the same as point deductions. It's a convention that a fighter who wins a round with a knockdown wins it 10-8, but it's not set in stone, and 10-9 is also possible (or even 10-10 in extreme cases).

Conversely you can win a round 10-8 without knocking your opponent down at all if you were dominant enough.

Although watch the last round of Taylor v Persoon and then tell me what someone has to do to win 10-8 without a KD. Taylor was being battered in the last 30 seconds.

Yes, fair point. The rules aren't evenly applied, to say the least. I have read that one of the rounds in Pacquiao v De La Hoya was 10-8 without a knockdown - two scorecards were 80-71 without any knockdowns or point deductions happening.

[dookus]

I know most KDs rounds are automatically 10-8

Yes and they shouldn’t always be in my opinion, otherwise you are ignoring everything the other fighter achieved in that round. Judges are there to score a fight so if there’s a blanket unwritten rule that forces a certain score then what’s the point of the judge watching.

Yeah, I'd like to see a lot more draws too.
Try and find a winner of course - but there shouldn't be a taboo about 10-10s. More 10-10s and more 10-8s too ! They don't have to be thrown out like confetti, but it would make for better scoring.

As a wiser man than me has said elsewhere in this thread, it is silly that a knockdown can have a three-point swing, especially if the fighter who gets it has been having their arse kicked all over the place for the rest of the round.

[keirw]

Fighter A wins the round so 10-9, but gets point deducted so becomes 9-9, however I heard all drawn rounds are scored 10-10.

So 10-10 or 9-9 doesn't really matter, as long as the round is even.

What about if fighter A bashes fighter B around the ring for 2 1/2 mins wobbling his opponent several times and looks very close to stopping him more than once, but then walks on to one at the end and gets up just before the end of the count?
Would anyone score the round 10-9 to fighter A?

You can score a round 10-8 without a knockdown, so what if it were so one sided you were going to score it 10-8 to Fighter A but then he gets dropped at the end, would that then be 10-9 for fighter A or would you effectively give fighter B 2 points back and score it 10-10?

Or as others are saying would you effectively give fighter B three points for a 9-10 score or four points for a 8-10 round?

If a fighter is doing just enough to win the round but gets knocked down, I have no problem with the judges giving a 3 point swing.
If the guy who gets knocked down was completely dominant but not really hurting his opponent the round should really be a draw.
If the fighter is completely dominant to the point of nearly winning a 10-8 round himself, but gets clipped, they should really still win the round 10-9.

In reality it is highly likely that the judges will score all three of these scenarios 10-8 to the other fighter, which seems a bit unfair to me.

I understand they want to reward 'clean effective punching' and the knockdown punch could cancel out all the other fighters good work in some cases, but not in the second two scenarios.

[Controversial]

In reality it is highly likely that the judges will score all three of these scenarios 10-8 to the other fighter, which seems a bit unfair to me.

I agree

[gb]

I've long felt that a knockdown should be treated the same as a point deduction. One point off at the end whether you are winning, drawing or losing the round. In most big fights it tends to either be worth one point or three (as drawn together rounds are rarely given anyway), which is a bit crazy.

[dookus]

I've long felt that a knockdown should be treated the same as a point deduction. One point off at the end whether you are winning, drawing or losing the round. In most big fights it tends to either be worth one point or three (as drawn together rounds are rarely given anyway), which is a bit crazy.

That would definitely make things simpler!

[Frostieballs]

99% of professional boxing judges would score the fight 10-8 to fighter B.

Well I don’t think we’ve stooped low enough yet to be judged by their standards.

[brilo33]

I’d be interested to see how people would score a fight in a hypothetical scenario. 10 point must system.

Fighter A completely dominates the round, he hits Fighter B with several clean punches from the bell, hurts him several times and makes him miss too. Fighter B looks out of his depth. Right at the end of the round Fighter B throws a haymaker and knocks Fighter A down, he gets up at 9 and the round ends.

How would you score it if you were a judge?

10 8