Technical decisions

[NeilHaggath]

How can judges score a round which lasted one second???
Catterall v Eubank was effectively ended at the end of Round 6, when the doctors advised the referee to stop it. But the bell rang to start Round 7, before the referee made up his mind, and he stopped it one second into the round. So the official result is recorded as a technical decision in Round 7, as the round had started - fair enough.
BUT... as they went to the scorecards for a technical decision, the rules say the uncompleted round has to be scored. But how does this make any sense, when not a single punch had been thrown in that round? In fact, the boxers were still standing in their corners! Presumably, the judges must have just automatically scored the round 10-10, making no difference to the outcome.
Obviously, it makes no sense to score the uncompleted round, if the stoppage occurs only a few seconds into it. But conversely, if the stoppage occurs after, say, 2m30s of the round, then NOT scoring it would be unfair to the guy who would have won the round, and could affect the outcome.
I would suggest that the rules need to be changed. A sensible solution would be to score the uncompleted round only if the stoppage occurs more than halfway through it.

[joshj909]

A draw is sufficient and doesn't effect the result if it happens so early.

[Coco]

I thought it was only ever judged on completed rounds for a TD?

[Coco]

I imagine if it was done in this fight, it would have been a 10-10, so fair enough.

I remember Khan v MAB, it should have been stopped much earlier, but they dragged it out so it wouldn't be a technical draw, the cut was doing much better by the time they stopped it

[Ruthless-RKO]

I thought it was only ever judged on completed rounds for a TD?

What i thought.

[mickey1975]

They do it in the ams. It can go to the cards after 1 uncompleted round and there has to be a verdict. I saw a guy lose in the national championships when neither had landed a punch.

[maninthemiddle]

Not easy to add to the rule depending on how many seconds or punches have been landed in the round that has commenced but it does distort the score slightly. Same situation in Cameron/Whittaker 1…
Could be a problem if a round lasts 10 seconds and 1 or 2 punches landed by the same boxer as “technically” that boxer is “ahead” in the round…

[Graham Houston]

The issue here is whether you consider a round has started when the bell sounds to start a round or whether a round doesn't start in actuality until both boxers leave their corners. The accepted procedure today is that a round is "active" once the bell signals the start of a round. If neither boxer leaves the corner obviously no punches are thrown, so the only possible score is a 10-10 round, which, yes, is confusing. I would prefer, for commonsense reasons, that in cases where a round has only started because the bell sounds that the scores be given for the end of the last "real" round (which would be after six rounds in the case of Catterall vs Eubank),

I once did a piece for Boxing Monthly on "rounds that never were". For instance, the Ring Record Book recorded Maxim vs Robinson as KO14 but the exhausted Sugar Ray was unable to answer the bell for Round 14. There, of course, was no 14th round as such.

[gregregegg]

How can judges score a round which lasted one second???
Catterall v Eubank was effectively ended at the end of Round 6, when the doctors advised the referee to stop it. But the bell rang to start Round 7, before the referee made up his mind, and he stopped it one second into the round. So the official result is recorded as a technical decision in Round 7, as the round had started - fair enough.
BUT... as they went to the scorecards for a technical decision, the rules say the uncompleted round has to be scored. But how does this make any sense, when not a single punch had been thrown in that round? In fact, the boxers were still standing in their corners! Presumably, the judges must have just automatically scored the round 10-10, making no difference to the outcome.
Obviously, it makes no sense to score the uncompleted round, if the stoppage occurs only a few seconds into it. But conversely, if the stoppage occurs after, say, 2m30s of the round, then NOT scoring it would be unfair to the guy who would have won the round, and could affect the outcome.
I would suggest that the rules need to be changed. A sensible solution would be to score the uncompleted round only if the stoppage occurs more than halfway through it.

But what if someone smashes someone for 80 seconds then its stopped on a cut.... puts them down 3 times... I think if you add specifics there will always be cases where the specifics fvck it...

Its pretty simple you score the round, If not enough happens for you to give it one way or another its a 10-10... I guess where it becomes unfair is if you start the round, and one guy jabs the other guy once then you stop the round... its a clear 10-9 but nothing happened.... that being said, if you restart a round and they start fighting its pretty unlikely you will stop it instantly.

Judges score rounds that go for 3 mins, and are very very very close, and they will score them either way 99% of the time and then 1% they will give a 10-10... that dosent make sense either.

Ulitimently in this, and in all judging I think it needs to be encouraged to give a 10-10 if unsure rather than just guess.... I don't want an abundance of 10-10 rounds, but when rounds are razor thin, swing rounds, 50% of people think 1 thing, 50% think another to have a judge just guess who won it seems silly to me... and I feel that's what happens sometimes. Its so common to have 2 judges say one thing and 1 judge say another... and while that should still happen, some of those instances judges probably should be giving some 10-10s.

[1683140]

The issue here is whether you consider a round has started when the bell sounds to start a round or whether a round doesn't start in actuality until both boxers leave their corners. The accepted procedure today is that a round is "active" once the bell signals the start of a round. If neither boxer leaves the corner obviously no punches are thrown, so the only possible score is a 10-10 round, which, yes, is confusing. I would prefer, for commonsense reasons, Pokerogue that in cases where a round has only started because the bell sounds that the scores be given for the end of the last "real" round (which would be after six rounds in the case of Catterall vs Eubank),

I once did a piece for Boxing Monthly on "rounds that never were". For instance, the Ring Record Book recorded Maxim vs Robinson as KO14 but the exhausted Sugar Ray was unable to answer the bell for Round 14. There, of course, was no 14th round as such.

In your opinion, should a round in boxing be considered to start when the bell sounds or only when both fighters leave their corners?

[Graham Houston]

For me, when both men leave their corners.

I refer you to the European heavyweight title fight between Henry Cooper and Jose Urtain at Wembley Pool in 1970.. Cooper had been inflicting quite a bit of damage and Urtain was getting busted up. The bell went for the ninth round, Henry and Urtain came out of their corners but the French referee told the timekeeper to stop the clock, took a close look at Urtain's visage, and waved the fight over. From memory it was after nine seconds of the ninth round. No punches had been thrown. But as each man had left his corner, I would consider that a ninth-round stoppage. For me, Catterall vs Eubank would be "technical decision end of 6". But that's just me. I think all the commissions agree that if the bell sounds it's "round in progress" even if neither boxer actually answers the bell for the round.

[Controversial]

I think they just declare the uncompleted round as a 10-10 draw if no punches thrown. Just a technicality I guess.

[SteveO]

I thought it was only ever judged on completed rounds for a TD?

What i thought.

Me too

[margaret thatcher]

in the usa i recall it mostly being that round has to go 1:30, i.e. at least half the round in order to be scored. not sure if still the case


heres a case from the ams of a fight going not even a minute before they clash heads, then have them go to decision, there have been quicker too

[NeilHaggath]

I imagine if it was done in this fight, it would have been a 10-10, so fair enough.

I remember Khan v MAB, it should have been stopped much earlier, but they dragged it out so it wouldn't be a technical draw, the cut was doing much better by the time they stopped it

I remember that well - I was there! Yes, the referee blatantly let it continue into the fifth round, so it would be recorded as a win for Khan instead of a technical draw.