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

[margaret thatcher]

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

no credit for beating the guy up for 98 percent of the round ?

[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 i said 10,8 iam not sure now reading it back, i reckon 10 9 , ive seen 10 9 i agree with 10 9

[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

no credit for beating the guy up for 98 percent of the round ?

i agree reading it back i think 10 9

[Frostieballs]

I think between us we have narrowed this down.

It all depends on whether by scoring a knockdown you are automatically deemed to have won the round.

If so, it’s 10-9 fighter B.

If not, 10-10.

Any score that doesn’t contain a 10 cannot be right under a 10 point must.

(This assumes fighter A hasn’t won the round to the extent it would otherwise be a 10-8. If so 10-9 to A!).

[brilo33]

this is all semantics though , as if fighter a got up from a knock down early in the rd then won the rd back , instead of bossing it then get put down at the end of the rd and hoping for the bell and hanging on ,

[brilo33]

i think 10 9 to the fighter with knock down always name of the game, i think the fury wilder first fight is that fight , i thought fury won ,my old man who has watched boxing 70 years went wilder because of the knock downs my older brother kinda agreed with the old man

[Frostieballs]

this is all semantics though , as if fighter a got up from a knock down early in the rd then won the rd back , instead of bossing it then get put down at the end of the rd and hoping for the bell and hanging on ,

No, question would be exactly the same surely?

He won the round either way but is knocked down.

[oogiebe]

It makes you appreciate the am rules of a kd being just one point, just like any other punch.

[brilo33]

this is all semantics though , as if fighter a got up from a knock down early in the rd then won the rd back , instead of bossing it then get put down at the end of the rd and hoping for the bell and hanging on ,

No, question would be exactly the same surely?

He won the round either way but is knocked down.

i dont agree if a fighter gets put down at the end of rd i think plays a big part , as you give a fighter respct for lasting a rd if he is put down early, but if a fighter gets put down in the last 15 seconds he alawys has that image of surviring a round yea its wrong thinking about it now , but do you get where i am coming from

[martinmrts]

In these situations it would help if the BBBoC had clear guidelines and published them. Not unreasonable when discussing top level sport.

"It depends on what you like" is a phrase which still crops up in "serious" discussions about scoring

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think between us we have narrowed this down.

It all depends on whether by scoring a knockdown you are automatically deemed to have won the round.

If so, it’s 10-9 fighter B.

If not, 10-10.

Any score that doesn’t contain a 10 cannot be right under a 10 point must.

(This assumes fighter A hasn’t won the round to the extent it would otherwise be a 10-8. If so 10-9 to A!).

You can have no fighter with a 10 if there are deductions.

[jamesmcdonnell]

The reality is most judges award s round 10-8 I'm most cases, which is very poor.

[DrDuke]

I've hesitated for a moment with two options: "Fighter B wins round 10-9" and "Draw". Those ones appeared to be the most popular choices, while I picked draw.

[Controversial]

In these situations it would help if the BBBoC had clear guidelines and published them. Not unreasonable when discussing top level sport.

"It depends on what you like" is a phrase which still crops up in "serious" discussions about scoring

The BBBoC rules online don't mention anything about giving 10-8 rounds to whoever scored a knockdown. All it says it award 10 points to the 'better man'. It does say on their site to contact them for a full copy of the rules but you would think the fairly lengthy ones they publish would include how to score knockdowns. So is it a boxing urban myth that 10-8 is given by default and it's irrelevant what the other fighter achieved. Or is that actually written down or taught?

Using the 'better man' as a yardstick you could argue fighter A in this scenario was the better man for the vast majority of the round so should all his good work be lost on what could be a flash knockdown?

[mickey1975]

It makes you appreciate the am rules of a kd being just one point, just like any other punch.

That isn’t the case anymore.

[Frostieballs]

I think between us we have narrowed this down.

It all depends on whether by scoring a knockdown you are automatically deemed to have won the round.

If so, it’s 10-9 fighter B.

If not, 10-10.

Any score that doesn’t contain a 10 cannot be right under a 10 point must.

(This assumes fighter A hasn’t won the round to the extent it would otherwise be a 10-8. If so 10-9 to A!).

You can have no fighter with a 10 if there are deductions.

There are no deductions in the scenario outlined.

[jamesmcdonnell]

In these situations it would help if the BBBoC had clear guidelines and published them. Not unreasonable when discussing top level sport.

"It depends on what you like" is a phrase which still crops up in "serious" discussions about scoring

I think the fact boxing rules are so arcane, mysterious, and frankly unknown even to hardcore boxing fans speaks volumes about the problems with the sport. It's a joke.
The BBBoC rules online don't mention anything about giving 10-8 rounds to whoever scored a knockdown. All it says it award 10 points to the 'better man'. It does say on their site to contact them for a full copy of the rules but you would think the fairly lengthy ones they publish would include how to score knockdowns. So is it a boxing urban myth that 10-8 is given by default and it's irrelevant what the other fighter achieved. Or is that actually written down or taught?

Using the 'better man' as a yardstick you could argue fighter A in this scenario was the better man for the vast majority of the round so should all his good work be lost on what could be a flash knockdown?

[olij999]

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.

Hi jonp - agree with what you are saying.

We seem to have this debate about once a year or two. See viewtopic.php?p=5015483 for a detailed explanation on a previous thread. In Britain, it is all in the Referee's Guide, which is not published on line, but which was last revised in 2014 by four BBBofC officials, including a A-star referee and me (although I am no longer with the Board these days). If you want a copy of the Referees Guide, you should be able to phone head office and get one provided you pay for it (I don't know if that is definitely the case, but it is with the green book which contains the regs, and only recently I was reading a 1950s Boxing News which mentioned the Referees Guide and was positively encouraging people to phone up and get a copy). Personally, I think it should have been published on line (given the importance of scoring and of people understanding these issues), but the Board take a different view.

The easy way to work out the answer to the OP's question (or indeed any round) is to score the round based on the usual criteria (punches landed, ring generalship, defence etc) WITHOUT taking account of the knockdown. Then, once you've done that, make a one point adjustment to take account of the knockdown. So if you thought fighter A was winning the round 10-9 ignoring B's knockdown of A, it becomes 10-10. If you thought A was winning the round 10-8 due to wobbling B etc, ignoring B's knockdown of A, then it becomes 10-9.

Re some of the comments on this thread:

- you do not win the round because you have scored a knockdown. if that were the case, you'd be scoring the knockdown twice - giving the fighter the round 10-9 because of the knockdown, then an extra point to make it 10-8. Which makes no sense at all, as the OP's example shows. The fallacy of this approach is clearer if you imagine both fighters score a knockdown in the same round - at that point, you can't say X or Y has won the round because they have scored the knockdown.

- the only time neither fighter gets 10 in a round is if a point is deducted for fouls. So if a fighter wins a round, say, 10-9 but has a point deducted for fouls, that becomes 10(-1) - 9 on the scorecard, so effectively 9-9. By contrast, as the point adjustment for a knockdown is not a deduction for fouls, one of the fighters has to get 10, so you can get a 10-10 round with a knockdown in it.

Hope that helps.

[olij999]

In these situations it would help if the BBBoC had clear guidelines and published them. Not unreasonable when discussing top level sport.

"It depends on what you like" is a phrase which still crops up in "serious" discussions about scoring

I think the fact boxing rules are so arcane, mysterious, and frankly unknown even to hardcore boxing fans speaks volumes about the problems with the sport. It's a joke.
The BBBoC rules online don't mention anything about giving 10-8 rounds to whoever scored a knockdown. All it says it award 10 points to the 'better man'. It does say on their site to contact them for a full copy of the rules but you would think the fairly lengthy ones they publish would include how to score knockdowns. So is it a boxing urban myth that 10-8 is given by default and it's irrelevant what the other fighter achieved. Or is that actually written down or taught?

Using the 'better man' as a yardstick you could argue fighter A in this scenario was the better man for the vast majority of the round so should all his good work be lost on what could be a flash knockdown?

Hi James - see my post above about BBBofC rules. The British rules are in the Referees Guide, which are not published on line, unfortunately.

PS - in the guide, there is no distinction between a flash knockdown or a heavier knockdown. If a fighter is down, they're down. The significance of the heaviness of the knockdown comes in a different way - if a fighter is down heavily, it is more likely he will be under more pressure when the fight continues, and it is that that can then influence the scoring (i.e. you might think that the fighter who was down has lost the round as a result of the punches his opponent has landed in the round due to that good pressure, plus a point adjustment for the knockdown, makes 10-8. Whereas if a fighter suffers a flash knockdown, he may get up, be unaffected and win the round 10-9, which becomes 10-10 with the point adjustment).

PPS- there is no such thing as an "automatic 10-8 round" in the UK (and no-one has ever shown me any rules from any other jurisdiction that say there is). So if you hear if, feel free to shout at the TV.

[olij999]

Just as an additional comment, the question of scoring is so important, in my view. One point difference on a scorecard can change a fighter's life - it can be the difference between a challenger getting a win or a draw in a title fight, for example. If that challenger wins, he has a title and may be able to make some money. If he doesn't, the chance may never come again. Scoring matters. Adam Booth's recent comment that as long as the judges get the right winner, the scoring doesn't matter is tripe, as if you say poor scoring is OK in that case (i.e. when the right fighter wins), you are simply setting the groundwork for poor scoring in the future when the right fighter may not win.

[Controversial]

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.

Hi jonp - agree with what you are saying.

We seem to have this debate about once a year or two. See viewtopic.php?p=5015483 for a detailed explanation on a previous thread. In Britain, it is all in the Referee's Guide, which is not published on line, but which was last revised in 2014 by four BBBofC officials, including a A-star referee and me (although I am no longer with the Board these days). If you want a copy of the Referees Guide, you should be able to phone head office and get one provided you pay for it (I don't know if that is definitely the case, but it is with the green book which contains the regs, and only recently I was reading a 1950s Boxing News which mentioned the Referees Guide and was positively encouraging people to phone up and get a copy). Personally, I think it should have been published on line (given the importance of scoring and of people understanding these issues), but the Board take a different view.

The easy way to work out the answer to the OP's question (or indeed any round) is to score the round based on the usual criteria (punches landed, ring generalship, defence etc) WITHOUT taking account of the knockdown. Then, once you've done that, make a one point adjustment to take account of the knockdown. So if you thought fighter A was winning the round 10-9 ignoring B's knockdown of A, it becomes 10-10. If you thought A was winning the round 10-8 due to wobbling B etc, ignoring B's knockdown of A, then it becomes 10-9.

Re some of the comments on this thread:

- you do not win the round because you have scored a knockdown. if that were the case, you'd be scoring the knockdown twice - giving the fighter the round 10-9 because of the knockdown, then an extra point to make it 10-8. Which makes no sense at all, as the OP's example shows. The fallacy of this approach is clearer if you imagine both fighters score a knockdown in the same round - at that point, you can't say X or Y has won the round because they have scored the knockdown.

- the only time neither fighter gets 10 in a round is if a point is deducted for fouls. So if a fighter wins a round, say, 10-9 but has a point deducted for fouls, that becomes 10(-1) - 9 on the scorecard, so effectively 9-9. By contrast, as the point adjustment for a knockdown is not a deduction for fouls, one of the fighters has to get 10, so you can get a 10-10 round with a knockdown in it.

Hope that helps.

Great post, thank you. So in the scenario posed you would have fighter A still winning 10-9 assuming you were going to score it as a 10-8 round if there was no knockdown?

[oogiebe]

It makes you appreciate the am rules of a kd being just one point, just like any other punch.

That isn’t the case anymore.

I wasn't aware they changed that. Haven't seen am boxing in quite some time.

[mickey1975]

It makes you appreciate the am rules of a kd being just one point, just like any other punch.

That isn’t the case anymore.

I wasn't aware they changed that. Haven't seen am boxing in quite some time.

It is very different post headguards and new scoring system.

[oogiebe]

That isn’t the case anymore.

I wasn't aware they changed that. Haven't seen am boxing in quite some time.

It is very different post headguards and new scoring system.

Too bad.

[olij999]

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.

Hi jonp - agree with what you are saying.

We seem to have this debate about once a year or two. See viewtopic.php?p=5015483 for a detailed explanation on a previous thread. In Britain, it is all in the Referee's Guide, which is not published on line, but which was last revised in 2014 by four BBBofC officials, including a A-star referee and me (although I am no longer with the Board these days). If you want a copy of the Referees Guide, you should be able to phone head office and get one provided you pay for it (I don't know if that is definitely the case, but it is with the green book which contains the regs, and only recently I was reading a 1950s Boxing News which mentioned the Referees Guide and was positively encouraging people to phone up and get a copy). Personally, I think it should have been published on line (given the importance of scoring and of people understanding these issues), but the Board take a different view.

The easy way to work out the answer to the OP's question (or indeed any round) is to score the round based on the usual criteria (punches landed, ring generalship, defence etc) WITHOUT taking account of the knockdown. Then, once you've done that, make a one point adjustment to take account of the knockdown. So if you thought fighter A was winning the round 10-9 ignoring B's knockdown of A, it becomes 10-10. If you thought A was winning the round 10-8 due to wobbling B etc, ignoring B's knockdown of A, then it becomes 10-9.

Re some of the comments on this thread:

- you do not win the round because you have scored a knockdown. if that were the case, you'd be scoring the knockdown twice - giving the fighter the round 10-9 because of the knockdown, then an extra point to make it 10-8. Which makes no sense at all, as the OP's example shows. The fallacy of this approach is clearer if you imagine both fighters score a knockdown in the same round - at that point, you can't say X or Y has won the round because they have scored the knockdown.

- the only time neither fighter gets 10 in a round is if a point is deducted for fouls. So if a fighter wins a round, say, 10-9 but has a point deducted for fouls, that becomes 10(-1) - 9 on the scorecard, so effectively 9-9. By contrast, as the point adjustment for a knockdown is not a deduction for fouls, one of the fighters has to get 10, so you can get a 10-10 round with a knockdown in it.

Hope that helps.

Great post, thank you. So in the scenario posed you would have fighter A still winning 10-9 assuming you were going to score it as a 10-8 round if there was no knockdown?

Yes - correct.