Ian John Lewis and Victor Laughlin

[olij999]

This is the interesting quote from Hoyle:

"I also believe that something seriously went on here - whether it was undue influence, one must question why?"

I wonder how deep they will go here. Some of the organisations involved with this fight I'm sure won't stand up to much scrutiny if investigated, but the question is whether the authorities have the appetite to get deep into this. I'm certain the BBBOC don't.

This referral to the police is a bit bizarre. What crime does the Speaker think has been committed? Presumably something similar to the cricket spot-fixing (see https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Cr ... /2914.html for that) - conspiracy to cheat or something? If so, what evidence (or even reasonable suspicion) does he have of financial malpractice? What he's really saying is that he thinks it was a really bad decision, but that happens in lots of sports every weekend and isn't criminal. All very odd.

Also, what I don't get is why people are picking on Ian John-Lewis in this specific case (setting aside, for the moment, people's views on his past decisions as referee or judge) - none of the three judges scored a majority of the rounds for Catterall. If you ignore the point deduction from each fighter and the one-point adjustment in Catterall's favour for the knockdown, the score in rounds comes out as 8-4 (IJL), 7-5 and 6-6. None had Catterall winning 7 rounds or more.

you sound like a bit of an apologist for sh!t judging tbh, not the first time you've called it 'odd' for people to be speaking out against the decision. are you the fellow who is/was a bbbc inspector?

surely you should understand why the guy with the widest card, with the biggest history of awful judging, would get picked on more. not sure why you dont get it when it's pretty simple

Certainly not an apologist for poor judging. It's one of the things that made me most irritated in my time on my local Area Council, and where I believe most change is needed. One round scored wrongly can change a fighter's life for ever, so it is the next most important thing after fighter safety. You're not reading between the lines at all, and patronising people is not a great approach. Find a post of mine in which I have defended poor judging and I'll happily stand corrected.

I'm commenting that it is "odd" for one judge to be targeted when none of the three scored in favour of Catterall. Some people on this thread seem to think that sacking IJL would somehow solve the issue. My question is how does picking on one judge make sense when all three judges have, in my view, scored the fight poorly? IJL agreed with at least one of his fellow judges in every single round except one, so he is hardly an outlier here. He had it 8-4 Taylor, while the other had it 7-5 and 6-6, which are no more acceptable in my view. Calling for the head of one judge on a plate doesn't solve any underlying problem. I have strong views on what the issues may be (and as mentioned on another thread, I don't believe there is any criminality) and what would solve them, and I know exactly what I would be doing if I was Catterall's lawyer. But I am not going to set any of that out on a forum.

[Fightnight Scores]

Certainly not an apologist for poor judging. It's one of the things that made me most irritated in my time on my local Area Council, and where I believe most change is needed. One round scored wrongly can change a fighter's life for ever, so it is the next most important thing after fighter safety. You're not reading between the lines at all, and patronising people is not a great approach. Find a post of mine in which I have defended poor judging and I'll happily stand corrected.

I'm commenting that it is "odd" for one judge to be targeted when none of the three scored in favour of Catterall. Some people on this thread seem to think that sacking IJL would somehow solve the issue. My question is how does picking on one judge make sense when all three judges have, in my view, scored the fight poorly? IJL agreed with at least one of his fellow judges in every single round except one, so he is hardly an outlier here. He had it 8-4 Taylor, while the other had it 7-5 and 6-6, which are no more acceptable in my view. Calling for the head of one judge on a plate doesn't solve any underlying problem. I have strong views on what the issues may be (and as mentioned on another thread, I don't believe there is any criminality) and what would solve them, and I know exactly what I would be doing if I was Catterall's lawyer. But I am not going to set any of that out on a forum.

Calling for all involved to be sacked just isn't realistic.
Robert Smith singled out IJL in his round of podcasts and with his ridiculous scorecard he is rightly the biggest target here, and given it is him that appears to most frequently put out these shit scorecards you can understand why he is the focus.

Agreed, there is more of an issue than just IJL, he isn't the only culprit. But he's the most consistent, and getting rid of one...is better than nothing being done at all.

[olij999]

Certainly not an apologist for poor judging. It's one of the things that made me most irritated in my time on my local Area Council, and where I believe most change is needed. One round scored wrongly can change a fighter's life for ever, so it is the next most important thing after fighter safety. You're not reading between the lines at all, and patronising people is not a great approach. Find a post of mine in which I have defended poor judging and I'll happily stand corrected.

I'm commenting that it is "odd" for one judge to be targeted when none of the three scored in favour of Catterall. Some people on this thread seem to think that sacking IJL would somehow solve the issue. My question is how does picking on one judge make sense when all three judges have, in my view, scored the fight poorly? IJL agreed with at least one of his fellow judges in every single round except one, so he is hardly an outlier here. He had it 8-4 Taylor, while the other had it 7-5 and 6-6, which are no more acceptable in my view. Calling for the head of one judge on a plate doesn't solve any underlying problem. I have strong views on what the issues may be (and as mentioned on another thread, I don't believe there is any criminality) and what would solve them, and I know exactly what I would be doing if I was Catterall's lawyer. But I am not going to set any of that out on a forum.

Calling for all involved to be sacked just isn't realistic.
Robert Smith singled out IJL in his round of podcasts and with his ridiculous scorecard he is rightly the biggest target here, and given it is him that appears to most frequently put out these shit scorecards you can understand why he is the focus.

Agreed, there is more of an issue than just IJL, he isn't the only culprit. But he's the most consistent, and getting rid of one...is better than nothing being done at all.

I see where you're coming from. The issue is whether the Board then says "look, we did something, and so that solves the problem - everything else is OK". I'm not saying what should or should not happen to IJL, just that one sacking will not materially improve the issue of scoring over the long term. Whatever happens in his case, longer term plans are needed.

PS - what was actually said on the podcasts?

[Cholo_cws]

Ian John-Lewis just been downgraded by the BBBofC (according to Talksport.) Presumably referring to A-star status as a judge.

[maverick23]

Has a bad decision in the U.K. ever had as much press/publicity as this one has had?

[maverick23]

Ian John-Lewis just been downgraded by the BBBofC (according to Talksport.) Presumably referring to A-star status as a judge.

I’ve just read the BBBC’s statement. It’s a joke. They’ve down graded him from A* to A but are satisfied his card didn’t impact the result of the fight - it was just the margin of victory they had issue with.

Also they’ve made the decision that judges should have to have annual performance reviews. I’m gobsmacked that doesn’t already happen as it does in most industries.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Ian John-Lewis just been downgraded by the BBBofC (according to Talksport.) Presumably referring to A-star status as a judge.

I’ve just read the BBBC’s statement. It’s a joke. They’ve down graded him from A* to A but are satisfied his card didn’t impact the result of the fight - it was just the margin of victory they had issue with.

Also they’ve made the decision that judges should have to have annual performance reviews. I’m gobsmacked that doesn’t already happen as it does in most industries.

What bullshit!

What's the difference between A* and A?

He can't judge world title fights? unifications?

[Greg Houston]

Ian John-Lewis just been downgraded by the BBBofC (according to Talksport.) Presumably referring to A-star status as a judge.

I’ve just read the BBBC’s statement. It’s a joke. They’ve down graded him from A* to A but are satisfied his card didn’t impact the result of the fight - it was just the margin of victory they had issue with.

Also they’ve made the decision that judges should have to have annual performance reviews. I’m gobsmacked that doesn’t already happen as it does in most industries.

What bullshit!

What's the difference between A* and A?

He can't judge world title fights? unifications?

Can't referee anything more than ten rounds and nothing higher than area championship.

[olij999]

Ian John-Lewis just been downgraded by the BBBofC (according to Talksport.) Presumably referring to A-star status as a judge.

I’ve just read the BBBC’s statement. It’s a joke. They’ve down graded him from A* to A but are satisfied his card didn’t impact the result of the fight - it was just the margin of victory they had issue with.

Also they’ve made the decision that judges should have to have annual performance reviews. I’m gobsmacked that doesn’t already happen as it does in most industries.

The statement says "the Stewards of the Board have further decided that in addition to each A Star Class official being evaluated after each bout, as per current procedure, they will now also be subject to a separate individual annual review." I would be interested to know what the "evaluation" after each bout consists of.

[olij999]

I’ve just read the BBBC’s statement. It’s a joke. They’ve down graded him from A* to A but are satisfied his card didn’t impact the result of the fight - it was just the margin of victory they had issue with.

Also they’ve made the decision that judges should have to have annual performance reviews. I’m gobsmacked that doesn’t already happen as it does in most industries.

What bullshit!

What's the difference between A* and A?

He can't judge world title fights? unifications?

Can't referee anything more than ten rounds and nothing higher than area championship.

Don't think that's right. See https://bbbofc.com/build/documents/Rule ... s_2021.pdf , rule 15.2(b) on page 40 - A-class refs can referee "contests for Area Championships, Championships or eliminating contests for Championships of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth, but excluding Europe, and the World." So it means they cannot do EBU and World, but they can do British and Commonwealth.

[Ruthless-RKO]

What bullshit!

What's the difference between A* and A?

He can't judge world title fights? unifications?

Can't referee anything more than ten rounds and nothing higher than area championship.

Don't think that's right. See https://bbbofc.com/build/documents/Rule ... s_2021.pdf , rule 15.2(b) on page 40 - A-class refs can referee "contests for Area Championships, Championships or eliminating contests for Championships of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth, but excluding Europe, and the World." So it means they cannot do EBU and World, but they can do British and Commonwealth.

So that's refereeing.. What about his judging? Same rule applies?

[Ricky]

Certainly not an apologist for poor judging. It's one of the things that made me most irritated in my time on my local Area Council, and where I believe most change is needed. One round scored wrongly can change a fighter's life for ever, so it is the next most important thing after fighter safety. You're not reading between the lines at all, and patronising people is not a great approach. Find a post of mine in which I have defended poor judging and I'll happily stand corrected.

I'm commenting that it is "odd" for one judge to be targeted when none of the three scored in favour of Catterall. Some people on this thread seem to think that sacking IJL would somehow solve the issue. My question is how does picking on one judge make sense when all three judges have, in my view, scored the fight poorly? IJL agreed with at least one of his fellow judges in every single round except one, so he is hardly an outlier here. He had it 8-4 Taylor, while the other had it 7-5 and 6-6, which are no more acceptable in my view. Calling for the head of one judge on a plate doesn't solve any underlying problem. I have strong views on what the issues may be (and as mentioned on another thread, I don't believe there is any criminality) and what would solve them, and I know exactly what I would be doing if I was Catterall's lawyer. But I am not going to set any of that out on a forum.

Calling for all involved to be sacked just isn't realistic.
Robert Smith singled out IJL in his round of podcasts and with his ridiculous scorecard he is rightly the biggest target here, and given it is him that appears to most frequently put out these shit scorecards you can understand why he is the focus.

Agreed, there is more of an issue than just IJL, he isn't the only culprit. But he's the most consistent, and getting rid of one...is better than nothing being done at all.

IJL isn't just a bad judge, he's also a diabolical ref.

Possibly the 2 worst things I've seen in boxing are;


A prizefighter match, over 3 rounds. Fighter A was floored in round 2, but IJL had him winning the fight 30-28. (I can't figure it out either).

And the stoppage of Enzo Macrinelli against Ovill McKenzie when he jumped in and stopped it (this still makes me laugh).


Downgraded to A? I wouldn't rate him a Z.

[dookus]

Certainly not an apologist for poor judging. It's one of the things that made me most irritated in my time on my local Area Council, and where I believe most change is needed. One round scored wrongly can change a fighter's life for ever, so it is the next most important thing after fighter safety. You're not reading between the lines at all, and patronising people is not a great approach. Find a post of mine in which I have defended poor judging and I'll happily stand corrected.

I'm commenting that it is "odd" for one judge to be targeted when none of the three scored in favour of Catterall. Some people on this thread seem to think that sacking IJL would somehow solve the issue. My question is how does picking on one judge make sense when all three judges have, in my view, scored the fight poorly? IJL agreed with at least one of his fellow judges in every single round except one, so he is hardly an outlier here. He had it 8-4 Taylor, while the other had it 7-5 and 6-6, which are no more acceptable in my view. Calling for the head of one judge on a plate doesn't solve any underlying problem. I have strong views on what the issues may be (and as mentioned on another thread, I don't believe there is any criminality) and what would solve them, and I know exactly what I would be doing if I was Catterall's lawyer. But I am not going to set any of that out on a forum.

Calling for all involved to be sacked just isn't realistic.
Robert Smith singled out IJL in his round of podcasts and with his ridiculous scorecard he is rightly the biggest target here, and given it is him that appears to most frequently put out these shit scorecards you can understand why he is the focus.

Agreed, there is more of an issue than just IJL, he isn't the only culprit. But he's the most consistent, and getting rid of one...is better than nothing being done at all.

A prizefighter match, over 3 rounds. Fighter A was floored in round 2, but IJL had him winning the fight 30-28. (I can't figure it out either).

You've raised that fight quite a times (and were rather rude to me when I explained how that's possible) so see below repost from a former Board member

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.

[Greg Houston]

What bullshit!

What's the difference between A* and A?

He can't judge world title fights? unifications?

Can't referee anything more than ten rounds and nothing higher than area championship.

Don't think that's right. See https://bbbofc.com/build/documents/Rule ... s_2021.pdf , rule 15.2(b) on page 40 - A-class refs can referee "contests for Area Championships, Championships or eliminating contests for Championships of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth, but excluding Europe, and the World." So it means they cannot do EBU and World, but they can do British and Commonwealth.

Looks like the rules have changed since the last book was issued. I get e-mails with changes, but unless it affects my role I don't always pay full attention. The 2019 book has the word excluding prior to championships of Great Britain.

In terms of judging, I've seen A and even B refs judge Celtic championship bouts and British eliminators as well as some of the alphabet bodies' minor titles (WBC Silver International etc.)

[olij999]

Can't referee anything more than ten rounds and nothing higher than area championship.

Don't think that's right. See https://bbbofc.com/build/documents/Rule ... s_2021.pdf , rule 15.2(b) on page 40 - A-class refs can referee "contests for Area Championships, Championships or eliminating contests for Championships of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth, but excluding Europe, and the World." So it means they cannot do EBU and World, but they can do British and Commonwealth.

So that's refereeing.. What about his judging? Same rule applies?

Correct. There's only one licence, i.e. referee, with no separate licence for judging. The rule on the link refers to "officiating", which will mean acting as referee or judge.

[olij999]

Can't referee anything more than ten rounds and nothing higher than area championship.

Don't think that's right. See https://bbbofc.com/build/documents/Rule ... s_2021.pdf , rule 15.2(b) on page 40 - A-class refs can referee "contests for Area Championships, Championships or eliminating contests for Championships of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth, but excluding Europe, and the World." So it means they cannot do EBU and World, but they can do British and Commonwealth.

Looks like the rules have changed since the last book was issued. I get e-mails with changes, but unless it affects my role I don't always pay full attention. The 2019 book has the word excluding prior to championships of Great Britain.

In terms of judging, I've seen A and even B refs judge Celtic championship bouts and British eliminators as well as some of the alphabet bodies' minor titles (WBC Silver International etc.)

Agreed. The small positive here is that the full rulebook is now on the BBBofC site, rather than the part of it that was there before - everyone should be able to see what the rules actually are. They should also put the Referee's Guide on the site, in my view, and amend the regulations so that the principles in the Guide become part of the regulations.

[forcefraser]

Certainly not an apologist for poor judging. It's one of the things that made me most irritated in my time on my local Area Council, and where I believe most change is needed. One round scored wrongly can change a fighter's life for ever, so it is the next most important thing after fighter safety. You're not reading between the lines at all, and patronising people is not a great approach. Find a post of mine in which I have defended poor judging and I'll happily stand corrected.

I'm commenting that it is "odd" for one judge to be targeted when none of the three scored in favour of Catterall. Some people on this thread seem to think that sacking IJL would somehow solve the issue. My question is how does picking on one judge make sense when all three judges have, in my view, scored the fight poorly? IJL agreed with at least one of his fellow judges in every single round except one, so he is hardly an outlier here. He had it 8-4 Taylor, while the other had it 7-5 and 6-6, which are no more acceptable in my view. Calling for the head of one judge on a plate doesn't solve any underlying problem. I have strong views on what the issues may be (and as mentioned on another thread, I don't believe there is any criminality) and what would solve them, and I know exactly what I would be doing if I was Catterall's lawyer. But I am not going to set any of that out on a forum.

Calling for all involved to be sacked just isn't realistic.
Robert Smith singled out IJL in his round of podcasts and with his ridiculous scorecard he is rightly the biggest target here, and given it is him that appears to most frequently put out these shit scorecards you can understand why he is the focus.

Agreed, there is more of an issue than just IJL, he isn't the only culprit. But he's the most consistent, and getting rid of one...is better than nothing being done at all.

IJL isn't just a bad judge, he's also a diabolical ref.

Possibly the 2 worst things I've seen in boxing are;


A prizefighter match, over 3 rounds. Fighter A was floored in round 2, but IJL had him winning the fight 30-28. (I can't figure it out either).

And the stoppage of Enzo Macrinelli against Ovill McKenzie when he jumped in and stopped it (this still makes me laugh).


Downgraded to A? I wouldn't rate him a Z.

Worse than Big Tezza carrying Cleverly to his corner in the Kovalev fight or letting Khan continue after the Prescott knockdown.

IJL has had some shockers though

[Ricky]

Calling for all involved to be sacked just isn't realistic.
Robert Smith singled out IJL in his round of podcasts and with his ridiculous scorecard he is rightly the biggest target here, and given it is him that appears to most frequently put out these shit scorecards you can understand why he is the focus.

Agreed, there is more of an issue than just IJL, he isn't the only culprit. But he's the most consistent, and getting rid of one...is better than nothing being done at all.

A prizefighter match, over 3 rounds. Fighter A was floored in round 2, but IJL had him winning the fight 30-28. (I can't figure it out either).

You've raised that fight quite a times (and were rather rude to me when I explained how that's possible) so see below repost from a former Board member

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.

Being knocked down and drawing the round 10-10 is completely absurd.

[Controversial]

A prizefighter match, over 3 rounds. Fighter A was floored in round 2, but IJL had him winning the fight 30-28. (I can't figure it out either).

You've raised that fight quite a times (and were rather rude to me when I explained how that's possible) so see below repost from a former Board member

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.

Being knocked down and drawing the round 10-10 is completely absurd.

Not really. It's a 10 point must system so the fighter who wins the round gets 10 points. As an extreme if fighter A completely dominates the round and then gets dropped in the last second and jumps up, that shouldn't wipe out all his previous good work. So fighter A can still be given 10 points for winning the round and fighter B is given 9 points. But to give him credit for the knockdown its made back up to 10. When people say is an automatic 8-10 round because one fighter has scored a knockdown isn't how it should scored.

[Ricky]

You've raised that fight quite a times (and were rather rude to me when I explained how that's possible) so see below repost from a former Board member

Being knocked down and drawing the round 10-10 is completely absurd.

Not really. It's a 10 point must system so the fighter who wins the round gets 10 points. As an extreme if fighter A completely dominates the round and then gets dropped in the last second and jumps up, that shouldn't wipe out all his previous good work. So fighter A can still be given 10 points for winning the round and fighter B is given 9 points. But to give him credit for the knockdown its made back up to 10. When people say is an automatic 8-10 round because one fighter has scored a knockdown isn't how it should scored.

I understand that a KD may not strictly be an automatic 10-8, but this is the most extreme circumstance. I wonder how many instances, in hundreds of thousands of fights, that a round with a KD is scored as 10-10.

[Controversial]

Being knocked down and drawing the round 10-10 is completely absurd.

Not really. It's a 10 point must system so the fighter who wins the round gets 10 points. As an extreme if fighter A completely dominates the round and then gets dropped in the last second and jumps up, that shouldn't wipe out all his previous good work. So fighter A can still be given 10 points for winning the round and fighter B is given 9 points. But to give him credit for the knockdown its made back up to 10. When people say is an automatic 8-10 round because one fighter has scored a knockdown isn't how it should scored.

I understand that a KD may not strictly be an automatic 10-8, but this is the most extreme circumstance. I wonder how many instances, in hundreds of thousands of fights, that a round with a KD is scored as 10-10.

I have no idea but the amount of times I hear commentators say "well thats a 10-8 round because of the knockdown" is misunderstanding how it should officially be scored. Even on here people will argue a KD means it should be a 10-8 round. If you think fighter A overwhelmingly won a round but happened to be dropped how would you score it?

[Ricky]

Not really. It's a 10 point must system so the fighter who wins the round gets 10 points. As an extreme if fighter A completely dominates the round and then gets dropped in the last second and jumps up, that shouldn't wipe out all his previous good work. So fighter A can still be given 10 points for winning the round and fighter B is given 9 points. But to give him credit for the knockdown its made back up to 10. When people say is an automatic 8-10 round because one fighter has scored a knockdown isn't how it should scored.

I understand that a KD may not strictly be an automatic 10-8, but this is the most extreme circumstance. I wonder how many instances, in hundreds of thousands of fights, that a round with a KD is scored as 10-10.

I have no idea but the amount of times I hear commentators say "well thats a 10-8 round because of the knockdown" is misunderstanding how it should officially be scored. Even on here people will argue a KD means it should be a 10-8 round. If you think fighter A overwhelmingly won a round but happened to be dropped how would you score it?

If Fighter A scores a knockdown then most cases it would be 10-8. A knockdown deserves that reward. If Fighter B really dominated the round despite being knocked down then perhaps 10-9 for A instead of 10-8.

[Controversial]

I understand that a KD may not strictly be an automatic 10-8, but this is the most extreme circumstance. I wonder how many instances, in hundreds of thousands of fights, that a round with a KD is scored as 10-10.

I have no idea but the amount of times I hear commentators say "well thats a 10-8 round because of the knockdown" is misunderstanding how it should officially be scored. Even on here people will argue a KD means it should be a 10-8 round. If you think fighter A overwhelmingly won a round but happened to be dropped how would you score it?

If Fighter A scores a knockdown then most cases it would be 10-8. A knockdown deserves that reward. If Fighter B really dominated the round despite being knocked down then perhaps 10-9 for A instead of 10-8.

But what you are doing there is scoring the KD twice. You should score the round first and ignore the KD. So if you think fighter A has won the round (ignoring any knockdowns) then they get 10 points and fighter B gets 9. But to reward fighter B for the KD you give fighter B an extra point, because its a 10 point must system it makes it a 10-10 round. Otherwise you are giving two points for one knockdown, because you are saying fighter A lost the round (that you think he won ignoring any knockdowns) and then also deducting another point for the KD. That isn't how it should be done but so many people do it like this.

[Ricky]

I have no idea but the amount of times I hear commentators say "well thats a 10-8 round because of the knockdown" is misunderstanding how it should officially be scored. Even on here people will argue a KD means it should be a 10-8 round. If you think fighter A overwhelmingly won a round but happened to be dropped how would you score it?

If Fighter A scores a knockdown then most cases it would be 10-8. A knockdown deserves that reward. If Fighter B really dominated the round despite being knocked down then perhaps 10-9 for A instead of 10-8.

But what you are doing there is scoring the KD twice. You should score the fight and ignore the KD. So if you think fighter A has won the round (ignoring any knockdowns) then they get 10 points and fighter B gets 9. But to reward the KD you give fighter B an extra point, because its a 10 point must system it makes it a 10-10 round. Otherwise you are giving two points for one knockdown, because you are saying fighter A lost the round (when you think he won) and then also deducting another point for the KD. That isn't how it should be done but so many people do it like this.

Well the judges for the largest fights do it like this;

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

And i disagree about scoring the KD twice, at a knockdown my opinion is 10-8 becomes a default, so 10-9 means the other guy has gained a point back.

[margaret thatcher]

so ijl is the only person in the world scoring correctly