Question about the points system.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 Dec 2003, 09:20

Steve Bunce implied that had Robin Reid been credited with the knock down and not got the point deducted then he would have won the fight on two of the cards.

However, reading how Piper was scoring some of the rounds (where there was point deductions) on the King card and also how I have seen other cards I cannot see how this was guarenteed.

I might be wrong but I was told that if the fighter wins the round but gets the point deducted then the round is scored 9-9 (although Piper was scoring them 10-10). This is what I viewed the scenerio between Reid and Ottke in round 6.

Here is a realistic 115-113 score card, which will show that it wasn't guarenteed that Reid would have won.

Ottke 9 9 9 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 9 115
Reid 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 113

Now if you make the 6th a 10-8 round to Reid, as scored in the UK this is the total.

Ottke 9 9 9 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 9 114
Reid 10 10 10 9 9 10 9 9 9 9 10 10 114

So not a Reid win as stated by Bunce, is this correct though - this is how I've always done things.

Dutch Windmill · Post by **Dutch Windmill** » 14 Dec 2003, 11:46

There's no way that a round where a fighter gets a point deducted is scored 10-10....
I know it's 10 point must system, but not in this case, I scored the fight 116-115(i'm a fan of even rounds) and scored that particular round 9-9

I believe that is the correct procedure.

adamiw · Post by **adamiw** » 14 Dec 2003, 12:07

windmill, they are the rules. It's crazy, but 9-9 becomes 10-10, thats not logical but it's the way it is.

Dutch Windmill · Post by **Dutch Windmill** » 14 Dec 2003, 12:09

F#ck it, can't be, i'm always right

adamiw · Post by **adamiw** » 14 Dec 2003, 12:19

i think there is a valid point, about the system that Ian Darke made last night. A fighter can win a round by the narrowist of margins, and be rewarded it 10-9. But a fighter can dominate a round, but perhaps not KD their opponent and only be rewarded the round 10-9 as well. So when you get to the end of the fight, the verdict can be alot closer than it seems when you watch without scoring.

Something needs to be done about it i feel.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 14 Dec 2003, 12:46

adamiw wrote:

i think there is a valid point, about the system that Ian Darke made last night. A fighter can win a round by the narrowist of margins, and be rewarded it 10-9. But a fighter can dominate a round, but perhaps not KD their opponent and only be rewarded the round 10-9 as well. So when you get to the end of the fight, the verdict can be alot closer than it seems when you watch without scoring.

Something needs to be done about it i feel.

Perhaps, a big round should be scored 10-8, and a knockdown round 10-7.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 Dec 2003, 12:55

Okay,so even if you have to score it 10-10 (which Piper did with Spinks vs Mayorga), its still means that had the judges scored it like that (and they WERE entitled to) then those decisions cost Reid the draw and not the win, which Bunce was adamant was 100% factually correct.

I still think the decision was fair, and even if you score the round 10-8 on my card Ottke won by 1.

adamiw · Post by **adamiw** » 14 Dec 2003, 13:06

bennie wrote:
adamiw wrote:

i think there is a valid point, about the system that Ian Darke made last night. A fighter can win a round by the narrowist of margins, and be rewarded it 10-9. But a fighter can dominate a round, but perhaps not KD their opponent and only be rewarded the round 10-9 as well. So when you get to the end of the fight, the verdict can be alot closer than it seems when you watch without scoring.

Something needs to be done about it i feel.
Perhaps, a big round should be scored 10-8, and a knockdown round 10-7.

yeah, but thinking about it, people would then argue that there would be less consistency throughout the 3 scorecards. It's a tricky one.

I

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 Dec 2003, 13:48

bennie wrote:
adamiw wrote:

i think there is a valid point, about the system that Ian Darke made last night. A fighter can win a round by the narrowist of margins, and be rewarded it 10-9. But a fighter can dominate a round, but perhaps not KD their opponent and only be rewarded the round 10-9 as well. So when you get to the end of the fight, the verdict can be alot closer than it seems when you watch without scoring.

Something needs to be done about it i feel.
Perhaps, a big round should be scored 10-8, and a knockdown round 10-7.

Bennie, very good but again should a round where the guy is dominating but goes down in a flash (more to do with balance) knockdown more so than another round in which one guy dominates for 3 minutes but can't put him down.

There are surely different categories of Knock down rounds. Maybe 10-8 for a knock down round as I have described and a 10-6 for a dominating round that also features a Knockdown.

But then we are getting to the extreme. I think, leave it the way it is, but judges should employ the 10-8 score for dominant rounds, which don't feature a KD more frequently.