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

[coghaugen11]

Dunno

[dookus]

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.

Many thanks for this, mate, it's good to have someone with actual direct knowledge of the rules comment on this.

So, to be clear, the scoring scenarios for a round with one knockdown (scores are A-B) are:

Fighter A wins the round and in doing so knocks down Fighter B. 10-8.

B is winning closely, but A knocks him down. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. A gets a "bonus point" by taking one off B. 10-9.

A is winning clearly, but B knocks him down. Overall, A still won the round 10-9. B gets a bonus point by taking one off A. That makes it 9-9, but applying the ten-point must system, it's 10-10.

A is winning closely, but B knocks down A. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. Bonus point to B, so 9-10.

A is winning, B knocks him down, and as a result B wins the round overall. 8-10.

[olij999]

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.

Many thanks for this, mate, it's good to have someone with actual direct knowledge of the rules comment on this.

So, to be clear, the scoring scenarios for a round with one knockdown (scores are A-B) are:

Fighter A wins the round and in doing so knocks down Fighter B. 10-8.

B is winning closely, but A knocks him down. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. A gets a "bonus point" by taking one off B. 10-9.

A is winning clearly, but B knocks him down. Overall, A still won the round 10-9. B gets a bonus point by taking one off A. That makes it 9-9, but applying the ten-point must system, it's 10-10.

A is winning closely, but B knocks down A. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. Bonus point to B, so 9-10.

A is winning, B knocks him down, and as a result B wins the round overall. 8-10.

No worries, happy to help. Re your examples, I agree with some but not quite on others (although I may have misinterpreted what you're saying). Comments as follows (I've numbered your examples to make it easier to cross-refer):

1. "Fighter A wins the round and in doing so knocks down Fighter B. 10-8."

Agreed.

2. "B is winning closely, but A knocks him down. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. A gets a "bonus point" by taking one off B. 10-9."

If, ignoring the knockdown, B won the round, even closely, then it is 10-9 to B before taking account of the knockdown. The knockdown makes it 10-10. (It sounds like you have decided that the round was even by taking account of the knockdown, as you had previously said B was winning the round, and have then given a point adjustment for the knockdown, so you've counted the KD twice.)

3. "A is winning clearly, but B knocks him down. Overall, A still won the round 10-9. B gets a bonus point by taking one off A. That makes it 9-9, but applying the ten-point must system, it's 10-10."

Agreed.

4. "A is winning closely, but B knocks down A. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. Bonus point to B, so 9-10."

Think this is the same point as example 2 and 3. If, ignoring the knockdown, A won the round, then 10-9 to A becomes 10-10 with the knockdown. The knockdown doesn't determine who won the round as you have to score it first ignoring the knockdown, then make the adjustment.

5 "A is winning, B knocks him down, and as a result B wins the round overall. 8-10."

The error is in saying "B knocks him down, and as a result B wins the round overall." The knockdown doesn't mean you win the round. You need to decide who wins the round (ignoring the knockdown) based on punches landed, defence, ring generalship, etc, and then make the one point adjustment. So if A won the round ignoring the KD, it's 10-10. If B put loads of pressure on after the KD and landed lots of punches at that point, B would have won the round 10-9, which becomes 10-8 with the KD.

In some of your examples, it may be that pressure exerted after the knockdown by the fighter who has just scored the knockdown means that that fighter has won the round - but it is that pressure (i.e. punches landed), not the knockdown, that is relevant. Then you make the adjustment for the knockdowns.

Hope that makes sense.

[dookus]

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.

Many thanks for this, mate, it's good to have someone with actual direct knowledge of the rules comment on this.

So, to be clear, the scoring scenarios for a round with one knockdown (scores are A-B) are:

Fighter A wins the round and in doing so knocks down Fighter B. 10-8.

B is winning closely, but A knocks him down. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. A gets a "bonus point" by taking one off B. 10-9.

A is winning clearly, but B knocks him down. Overall, A still won the round 10-9. B gets a bonus point by taking one off A. That makes it 9-9, but applying the ten-point must system, it's 10-10.

A is winning closely, but B knocks down A. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. Bonus point to B, so 9-10.

A is winning, B knocks him down, and as a result B wins the round overall. 8-10.

No worries, happy to help. Re your examples, I agree with some but not quite on others (although I may have misinterpreted what you're saying). Comments as follows (I've numbered your examples to make it easier to cross-refer):

1. "Fighter A wins the round and in doing so knocks down Fighter B. 10-8."

Agreed.

2. "B is winning closely, but A knocks him down. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. A gets a "bonus point" by taking one off B. 10-9."

If, ignoring the knockdown, B won the round, even closely, then it is 10-9 to B before taking account of the knockdown. The knockdown makes it 10-10. (It sounds like you have decided that the round was even by taking account of the knockdown, as you had previously said B was winning the round, and have then given a point adjustment for the knockdown, so you've counted the KD twice.)

3. "A is winning clearly, but B knocks him down. Overall, A still won the round 10-9. B gets a bonus point by taking one off A. That makes it 9-9, but applying the ten-point must system, it's 10-10."

Agreed.

4. "A is winning closely, but B knocks down A. Taking all of the action in the round into account, the round is even. Bonus point to B, so 9-10."

Think this is the same point as example 2 and 3. If, ignoring the knockdown, A won the round, then 10-9 to A becomes 10-10 with the knockdown. The knockdown doesn't determine who won the round as you have to score it first ignoring the knockdown, then make the adjustment.

5 "A is winning, B knocks him down, and as a result B wins the round overall. 8-10."

The error is in saying "B knocks him down, and as a result B wins the round overall." The knockdown doesn't mean you win the round. You need to decide who wins the round (ignoring the knockdown) based on punches landed, defence, ring generalship, etc, and then make the one point adjustment. So if A won the round ignoring the KD, it's 10-10. If B put loads of pressure on after the KD and landed lots of punches at that point, B would have won the round 10-9, which becomes 10-8 with the KD.

In some of your examples, it may be that pressure exerted after the knockdown by the fighter who has just scored the knockdown means that that fighter has won the round - but it is that pressure (i.e. punches landed), not the knockdown, that is relevant. Then you make the adjustment for the knockdowns.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks a lot. Yes, that all makes sense. To be clear, I'm thinking in terms of the knockdown itself being part of the action and having an effect on who wins it, but not in priority to any other part of the round. It sounds like I should be ignoring it almost entirely.

(It may also be that I'm used to placing more emphasis on knockdowns as part of the significant action in a round - probably from a lifetime of seeing judges score 10-8 nearly every time)

[margaret thatcher]

do the actual judges discuss these issues in nearly as much depth as we do here?

or are they just like, 'meh, 10-8' automatically is easier. say, when is that orgy at robert smith's again? bob's always got out back if you know what i mean"

[Controversial]

Thanks a lot. Yes, that all makes sense. To be clear, I'm thinking in terms of the knockdown itself being part of the action and having an effect on who wins it, but not in priority to any other part of the round. It sounds like I should be ignoring it almost entirely.

(It may also be that I'm used to placing more emphasis on knockdowns as part of the significant action in a round - probably from a lifetime of seeing judges score 10-8 nearly every time)

It doesn't help when you listen to commentators on TV saying things like 'well he won that round due the knockdown'

[Frostieballs]

So in summary?:

1. Score the round without taking knockdowns into account

2. Then deduct points for knock downs

3. If after doing so neither fighter is at 10, move them both up the same number of points until one is

4. Only then deduct any points taken off for fouls.

[olij999]

So in summary?:

1. Score the round without taking knockdowns into account

2. Then deduct points for knock downs

3. If after doing so neither fighter is at 10, move them both up the same number of points until one is

4. Only then deduct any points taken off for fouls.

Yep.

[Ambling Alp II]

If I am following this, you would probably have it 10-9 for fighter B in this case.

Most people would have it 10-9 for fighter A without the knockdown. Knockdown makes 9-8 for fighter B. Then each gets a point, making it 10-9 for fighter B.
That is how I would probably score it, though I never thought of it exactly this.

The fact that fighter B was able to score a knockdown and fighter A was not, means he probably deserves the round. However, it should not be 10-8. We should not just completely ignore the rest of the round.
For a real life example, I think there were two rounds like this in Chacon-Boza Edwards II. Might have been the first two rounds.

[Frostieballs]

If I am following this, you would probably have it 10-9 for fighter B in this case.

Most people would have it 10-9 for fighter A without the knockdown. Knockdown makes 9-8 for fighter B. Then each gets a point, making it 10-9 for fighter B.
That is how I would probably score it, though I never thought of it exactly this.

The fact that fighter B was able to score a knockdown and fighter A was not, means he probably deserves the round. However, it should not be 10-8. We should not just completely ignore the rest of the round.
For a real life example, I think there were two rounds like this in Chacon-Boza Edwards II. Might have been the first two rounds.

As per the posts above, the first thing you have to ask yourself is how would you score the round without the knockdown.

The knockdown does not mean that the fighter who achieves it has automatically won the round.

[keirw]

What if fighter A is beating fighter B clearly and on the verge of a 10-8 round, then knocks fighter B down at the end of the round?

Is there any precident for giving a 10-7 round to fighter A?

[Frostieballs]

What if fighter A is beating fighter B clearly and on the verge of a 10-8 round, then knocks fighter B down at the end of the round?

Is there any precident for giving a 10-7 round to fighter A?

You can defo have a 10-7. Wins the round 10-8. Then moved to a 10-7 because of deduction.

[keirw]

What if fighter A is beating fighter B clearly and on the verge of a 10-8 round, then knocks fighter B down at the end of the round?

Is there any precident for giving a 10-7 round to fighter A?

You can defo have a 10-7. Wins the round 10-8. Then moved to a 10-7 because of deduction.

Indeed, but how many judges would score it that way.

If the round I described was the opening round and the round described by the OP the second. How likely is it that some judges would have the fight even going into the third despite fighter A being clearly superior to fighter B?

[margaret thatcher]

one of the judges for gatti-ward 1 scored the 9th round 10-7 for ward with just 1 kd. ward battered gatti that wound and the commentary was calling for a stoppage, but the ref let it go and gatti actually fought back a bit near the end of the round , imo enough to have deserved 10-8

of course most will just go 10-8 , but it could happen

[Frostieballs]

What if fighter A is beating fighter B clearly and on the verge of a 10-8 round, then knocks fighter B down at the end of the round?

Is there any precident for giving a 10-7 round to fighter A?

You can defo have a 10-7. Wins the round 10-8. Then moved to a 10-7 because of deduction.

Indeed, but how many judges would score it that way.

If the round I described was the opening round and the round described by the OP the second. How likely is it that some judges would have the fight even going into the third despite fighter A being clearly superior to fighter B?

Well, I’m not sure we should be looking to the judges for any indication of the right thing to do!

[keirw]

You can defo have a 10-7. Wins the round 10-8. Then moved to a 10-7 because of deduction.

Indeed, but how many judges would score it that way.

If the round I described was the opening round and the round described by the OP the second. How likely is it that some judges would have the fight even going into the third despite fighter A being clearly superior to fighter B?

Well, I’m not sure we should be looking to the judges for any indication of the right thing to do!

Of course not, I'm just pointing to a sad truth that many boxing fans see fights in which one fighter clearly wins yet the judges have it a different way, partly due to the subjectiveness of the scoring criteria.

Happens far too often, I'm sure you agree.

[Frostieballs]

Indeed, but how many judges would score it that way.

If the round I described was the opening round and the round described by the OP the second. How likely is it that some judges would have the fight even going into the third despite fighter A being clearly superior to fighter B?

Well, I’m not sure we should be looking to the judges for any indication of the right thing to do!

Of course not, I'm just pointing to a sad truth that many boxing fans see fights in which one fighter clearly wins yet the judges have it a different way, partly due to the subjectiveness of the scoring criteria.

Happens far too often, I'm sure you agree.

Of course my friend.

[Controversial]

I'm always gonna give the round to the guy that scores the knockdown

So even if fighter A dominated to the point it could even be a 10-8 round to him (if there wasn't a knockdown), based on him being dropped you would automatically discount all his good work for the vast majority of the round and give fighter B the round 9-10 or 8-10, effectively giving him 3 or 4 points for scoring a knockdown?

[margaret thatcher]

Ya it makes you wonder doesnt it. You could literally batter a guy for 2:50 of a round, but let's say he catches you off balance with a jab for a kd.

Should that 1 jab really be worth such a big point swing

[gilgamesh]

I'm always gonna give the round to the guy that scores the knockdown

So even if fighter A dominated to the point it could even be a 10-8 round to him (if there wasn't a knockdown), based on him being dropped you would automatically discount all his good work for the vast majority of the round and give fighter B the round 9-10 or 8-10, effectively giving him 3 or 4 points for scoring a knockdown?

I mean I've personally never seen that before. I've seen a guy control a round after being knocked down or before being knocked down. I've never seen a guy dominate to the point he'd have a 10-8 round without a knockdown after being dropped himself.

Were that to happen it would mean he's damaging his opponent so badly he's about to stop him so it would basically become a moot point anyway.

I'll give you a good example of what I mean. In Pacquiao vs Barrera 1, Barrera technically scores a knockdown on Pacquiao in a round he was losing. It's a 10-8 round for Barrera even though it seemed more a balance issue.

But of course after that Pacquiao f*cking decimated him and never lost another minute of any round for the rest of the fight.

So these things tend to work themselves out.

[Frostieballs]

Ya it makes you wonder doesnt it. You could literally batter a guy for 2:50 of a round, but let's say he catches you off balance with a jab for a kd.

Should that 1 jab really be worth such a big point swing

No, and it isn’t. As has been said, a fighter doesn’t automatically win a round because of a KD.

[margaret thatcher]

I'm always gonna give the round to the guy that scores the knockdown

So even if fighter A dominated to the point it could even be a 10-8 round to him (if there wasn't a knockdown), based on him being dropped you would automatically discount all his good work for the vast majority of the round and give fighter B the round 9-10 or 8-10, effectively giving him 3 or 4 points for scoring a knockdown?

I mean I've personally never seen that before. I've seen a guy control a round after being knocked down or before being knocked down. I've never seen a guy dominate to the point he'd have a 10-8 round without a knockdown after being dropped himself.

Were that to happen it would mean he's damaging his opponent so badly he's about to stop him so it would basically become a moot point anyway.

I'll give you a good example of what I mean. In Pacquiao vs Barrera 1, Barrera technically scores a knockdown on Pacquiao in a round he was losing. It's a 10-8 round for Barrera even though it seemed more a balance issue.

But of course after that Pacquiao f*cking decimated him and never lost another minute of any round for the rest of the fight.

So these things tend to work themselves out.

You dont have to score the round 10-8 though, or did you value barrera's off balance kd so much more than pac beating him up for the rest of the round?

[gilgamesh]

Pac didn't really "beat him up" in the 1st round, but he did get the better of it.

He started really kicking his ass bad about Round 3, but really was never not in control. The knockdown in Round 1 was an anomaly.

A knockdown always has to count for something because that's the goal of a fight. Knock the guy down or out, but if you're landing more punches, and beating the guy up in spite of having been knocked down. Chances are you're gonna come out on top anyway.

[Controversial]

I'm always gonna give the round to the guy that scores the knockdown

So even if fighter A dominated to the point it could even be a 10-8 round to him (if there wasn't a knockdown), based on him being dropped you would automatically discount all his good work for the vast majority of the round and give fighter B the round 9-10 or 8-10, effectively giving him 3 or 4 points for scoring a knockdown?

I mean I've personally never seen that before. I've seen a guy control a round after being knocked down or before being knocked down. I've never seen a guy dominate to the point he'd have a 10-8 round without a knockdown after being dropped himself.

Were that to happen it would mean he's damaging his opponent so badly he's about to stop him so it would basically become a moot point anyway.

I'll give you a good example of what I mean. In Pacquiao vs Barrera 1, Barrera technically scores a knockdown on Pacquiao in a round he was losing. It's a 10-8 round for Barrera even though it seemed more a balance issue.

But of course after that Pacquiao f*cking decimated him and never lost another minute of any round for the rest of the fight.

So these things tend to work themselves out.

But you said you would always give the round to whoever scored the knockdown. What if one fighter was winning the round and would be scored a 10-9 winner by most people, and then gets dropped (flash knockdown) at the end of the round, would you score the round to the other fighter by 9-10 ?

[gilgamesh]

So even if fighter A dominated to the point it could even be a 10-8 round to him (if there wasn't a knockdown), based on him being dropped you would automatically discount all his good work for the vast majority of the round and give fighter B the round 9-10 or 8-10, effectively giving him 3 or 4 points for scoring a knockdown?

I mean I've personally never seen that before. I've seen a guy control a round after being knocked down or before being knocked down. I've never seen a guy dominate to the point he'd have a 10-8 round without a knockdown after being dropped himself.

Were that to happen it would mean he's damaging his opponent so badly he's about to stop him so it would basically become a moot point anyway.

I'll give you a good example of what I mean. In Pacquiao vs Barrera 1, Barrera technically scores a knockdown on Pacquiao in a round he was losing. It's a 10-8 round for Barrera even though it seemed more a balance issue.

But of course after that Pacquiao f*cking decimated him and never lost another minute of any round for the rest of the fight.

So these things tend to work themselves out.

But you said you would always give the round to whoever scored the knockdown. What if one fighter was winning the round and would be scored a 10-9 winner by most people, and then gets dropped (flash knockdown) at the end of the round, would you score the round to the other fighter by 9-10 ?

Probably. Unless the guy who got knocked down really, really dominated prior to being knocked down it'd be 10-8 for the guy who scored the Flash knockdown.