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

[margaret thatcher]

why not 10-9 bruh? a little flash kd is really worth 3-4 point swing?


i do agree kds are often weighted so heavily, i dont think an off balance flash kd should get a guy a 2 point round when he got beaten up the rest of it. is 2:50 of total dominance really so worthless as to be erased all cuz of a flash kd

[Frostieballs]

The rules are above guys.

Score the round without the knockdowns first.....

[Controversial]

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.

So 8-10 for Fighter B instead of 10-9 for Fighter A pre-knockdown, don't you think a 3 point swing is a lot though?

[gilgamesh]

That's why you stay on your feet.

[Controversial]

That's why you stay on your feet.

I get you should be penalised but not enough to cancel out what the other guy achieved. If fighter A was winning 10-9 and also scored the knockdown as well, would you score it 10-7 ?

[gilgamesh]

That's why you stay on your feet.

I get you should be penalised but not enough to cancel out what the other guy achieved. If fighter A was winning 10-9 and also scored the knockdown as well, would you score it 10-7 ?

No.

To get the extra point you'd get aside from a knockdown you have to absolutely batter the living sh*t out of the guy. Like to the point that you almost stopped him on a few occasions, or had him noticeably on shaky legs throughout.

More often than not the kinda damage it would take to get that extra point without the knockdown would just get you the stoppage.

[margaret thatcher]

so a kd is only worth 1 point if youre winning the round, but 3 if you were losing it?

[Controversial]

That's why you stay on your feet.

I get you should be penalised but not enough to cancel out what the other guy achieved. If fighter A was winning 10-9 and also scored the knockdown as well, would you score it 10-7 ?

No.

To get the extra point you'd get aside from a knockdown you have to absolutely batter the living sh*t out of the guy. Like to the point that you almost stopped him on a few occasions, or had him noticeably on shaky legs throughout.

More often than not the kinda damage it would take to get that extra point without the knockdown would just get you the stoppage.

Then the maths don’t add up because you are giving fighter B more points for his knockdown than you would if fighter A scored a knockdown?

[gilgamesh]

I get you should be penalised but not enough to cancel out what the other guy achieved. If fighter A was winning 10-9 and also scored the knockdown as well, would you score it 10-7 ?

No.

To get the extra point you'd get aside from a knockdown you have to absolutely batter the living sh*t out of the guy. Like to the point that you almost stopped him on a few occasions, or had him noticeably on shaky legs throughout.

More often than not the kinda damage it would take to get that extra point without the knockdown would just get you the stoppage.

Then the maths don’t add up because you are giving fighter B more points for his knockdown than you would if fighter A scored a knockdown?

I'm giving 'em the same points.

[margaret thatcher]

on your card the kd makes a 3 point difference in 1 case but only a 1 point difference in the other

[gilgamesh]

on your card the kd makes a 3 point difference in 1 case but only a 1 point difference in the other

It makes a 2 point difference if I deem the round to have been dominated enough by the guy who got knocked down to only score it 10-9. Seldom ever happens.

Just like it seldom happens you get a 10-8 round without a knockdown or point deduction.

It does happen on occasion though.

The round has to be absolutely dominated in a major, major way for me not to give the fight scoring the knockdown a 10-8 round.

[margaret thatcher]

why no 10-7 if the guy was already winning the round then?

[gilgamesh]

Cuz it be's that way.

If the official judges ever start scoring differently I may adjust the way I score. In the meantime I like to have an accurate reflection based on the way the officials tend to score.

[Controversial]

No.

To get the extra point you'd get aside from a knockdown you have to absolutely batter the living sh*t out of the guy. Like to the point that you almost stopped him on a few occasions, or had him noticeably on shaky legs throughout.

More often than not the kinda damage it would take to get that extra point without the knockdown would just get you the stoppage.

Then the maths don’t add up because you are giving fighter B more points for his knockdown than you would if fighter A scored a knockdown?

I'm giving 'em the same points.

You're not because a 10-8 including a knockdown for fighter A changed to a 8-10 for fighter B scoring a knockdown instead means you are deducting two points from A, so wiping out the points you gave for outboxing his opponent for almost the entire round plus giving two points to B for the knockdown (4 point swing). Whereas you were only giving A two points for outboxing his opponent and scoring the same knockdown (2 points).

So what points would you have just scoring who won the round (ignoring any knockdown)? Once you have that score then deduct a point for the knockdown. Thats how the rules say it should be done otherwise you are rewarding fighter B twice and entirely basing the round winner on just who scored the knockdown and completely ignoring everything else the other fighter done.

[gilgamesh]

This conversation bores me at this point.

Ladies and Gentleman.

Billy Preston