Question Re: Value of rounds

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 30 Oct 2007, 20:58

Fighter A wins the first six rounds clearly on all cards

Fighter B wins the last six rounds clearly on all cards.

Who wins this fight? Assuming the dominance of each half is literaly about equal. Is this fight a genuine draw in YOUR mind? I'm not talking about what the announcer is going to announce...we all know it will be announced as a draw.

But what do YOU think?

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 30 Oct 2007, 22:44

Good question.
I like the fighter who finishes stronger in this case .
He also by winning rounds 10 thru 12 wins what some would call the "championship rounds". By virtue of that , he seperates himself a little bit from the other guy .Thus I give him the nod.

Marlin · Post by **Marlin** » 30 Oct 2007, 22:51

I think it is a dead set draw. In terms of winning a fight on points the first rounds are of no more important than the last IMO. The last few rounds are sometimes percieved to be more important (and in a close fight it is important you can finish strong and take the 'championship rounds) but in the end winning a round is winning a round.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 30 Oct 2007, 23:12

Expug wrote:Good question.
I like the fighter who finishes stronger in this case .
He also by winning rounds 10 thru 12 wins what some would call the "championship rounds". By virtue of that , he seperates himself a little bit from the other guy .Thus I give him the nod.

Yes, but that's not how you would score it as a judge is it? You would fill your score card in each round. Each round is it's own fight.

The championship rounds are worth no more than any other round, so what difference does it make? The only reason they are called that, is because it is quite often the course of those four rounds that swing the fight one way or another if a fight is close, or one fighter stops another fighters due to fatigue.

My take would be. How close were those rounds. Did fighter A win the first 6 clearly and convincingly, did fighter B win those last 6 convincingly?

With the new half point system they are talking about bringing in, this could make a big difference. It may be that some of those rounds are barely shaded and are half point rounds.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 30 Oct 2007, 23:18

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Expug wrote:Good question.
I like the fighter who finishes stronger in this case .
He also by winning rounds 10 thru 12 wins what some would call the "championship rounds". By virtue of that , he seperates himself a little bit from the other guy .Thus I give him the nod.
Yes, but that's not how you would score it as a judge is it? You would fill your score card in each round. Each round is it's own fight.

The championship rounds are worth no more than any other round, so what difference does it make? The only reason they are called that, is because it is quite often the course of those four rounds that swing the fight one way or another if a fight is close, or one fighter stops another fighters due to fatigue.

My take would be. How close were those rounds. Did fighter A win the first 6 clearly and convincingly, did fighter B win those last 6 convincingly?

With the new half point system they are talking about bringing in, this could make a big difference. It may be that some of those rounds are barely shaded and are half point rounds.

I hear ya .
I still feel in a 12 rounder , a title fight in this case, finishing strong is important in judging the bout.
Winning 10-12 shows me more in a close fight than winning rounds 1 and 2.
Of course, I cant stand a draw also.
Pick a winner damnit.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 31 Oct 2007, 04:26

In the case of clear-cut winners, barring knockdowns or point deductions, there is just no logical way you can score this hypothetical bout anything other than a draw. No round is more important than any other in objective terms, & that's the way officials are intended to score.

Btw, this, "half-point" concept will be a catastrophe for legitimate decisions in boxing. God willing this thing crashes, & fast.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 31 Oct 2007, 16:10

To me the last six rounds are more important, in a sense. The championship rounds especially are usually where the champion separates himself. Leonard did against Hearns in their two fights. Hopkins did against Taylor and Wright. Ali did against Frazier in Manila. But that said, boxing is scored on a rounds basis, and there is no logical reason why someone who wins the last six rounds deserves the fight any more than the guy who won the first six. It should be a draw.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 31 Oct 2007, 18:29

I would think the guy who wins the last 6 rounds has the "bragging rights" only. ESPECIALLY if he lost the first six....the bounce back to me is the greater achievement.

So the public perception would probably be that fighter B is superior. But his record will not show it. However I believe this is ONLY the case if it is OBVIOUS that both fighters are truly giving it their personal best.

My theory dissolves quickly when faced with a scenario where fighter A begins coasting on purpose.... For example Trinidad vs DLH. I can't believe that DLH was giving his best after a certain point...possibley maybe even probably costing him the fight.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 03 Nov 2007, 01:38

..six of one equals half dozen of another, so it would have to be a draw but in the eyes of the crowd i think they'd call the last round guy the winner. in new york at one time there was actually a rule that if a fight was called a draw in rounds the judges went to the score cards.....but here's the kicker...if the guy was just a little short on both counts..no teven but actually behind ... but finished strong...say with a knockdown or really battering his opponent , the judges had the option of calling the strong finish guy the winner. the only fight i can recall this happening...i saw it on television.... was coley wallace getting the win this way. it would be cynical to assume that wallace was a big amateure star and considered the next joe louis was being built up as such had anything to do with this.

JAHamilton77 · Post by **JAHamilton77** » 03 Nov 2007, 04:49

Expug wrote:Good question.
I like the fighter who finishes stronger in this case .
He also by winning rounds 10 thru 12 wins what some would call the "championship rounds". By virtue of that , he seperates himself a little bit from the other guy .Thus I give him the nod.

Actually rounds beyond 10 are called championship rounds because only fights for titles of some sort go beyond 10 rounds today.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 03 Nov 2007, 07:12

JAHamilton77 wrote:
Expug wrote:Good question.
I like the fighter who finishes stronger in this case .
He also by winning rounds 10 thru 12 wins what some would call the "championship rounds". By virtue of that , he seperates himself a little bit from the other guy .Thus I give him the nod.
Actually rounds beyond 10 are called championship rounds because only fights for titles of some sort go beyond 10 rounds today.

my guess is that ex knows that. However the "mystique" of the championship rounds is certainly real. And if your in good enough condition to administer a beating to your opponent in these rounds (especially after having lost the first six in my given example) it tells everyone that your made of pretty durable stuff. Once again I'm bias to those last six because you survived the first six, "got inspired" and decided not to be defeated. It speaks to heart and an indominateble spirit. The strong finisher gets the credit of a job well done.....if not the official nod.

Has the idea of a "tie breaking round" ever been considered? I hate draws and would love to see this employed especially in a championship fight. Round 13....THE championship round....if needed.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 03 Nov 2007, 09:32

JAHamilton77 wrote:
Expug wrote:Good question.
I like the fighter who finishes stronger in this case .
He also by winning rounds 10 thru 12 wins what some would call the "championship rounds". By virtue of that , he seperates himself a little bit from the other guy .Thus I give him the nod.
Actually rounds beyond 10 are called championship rounds because only fights for titles of some sort go beyond 10 rounds today.

Thanks for that info JA

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 03 Nov 2007, 11:59

Expug wrote:
JAHamilton77 wrote:
Expug wrote:Good question.
I like the fighter who finishes stronger in this case .
He also by winning rounds 10 thru 12 wins what some would call the "championship rounds". By virtue of that , he seperates himself a little bit from the other guy .Thus I give him the nod.
Actually rounds beyond 10 are called championship rounds because only fights for titles of some sort go beyond 10 rounds today.
Thanks for that info JA

You have to believe he was kidding. Otherwise he needs to be put down before he causes someone unintended harm.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 03 Nov 2007, 15:12

..the idea of the "championship rounds" being just two more than a ten round fight is stretching the definition, compared to the former 15 rounds, where those extra five rounds really made a difference. plus, 15 is an uneven number, so it lessens the chances of a fight being a draw. i agree with buzzy that a 13th round would do the same, but not as an "extra" round as it wouldn't be fair to fighters who had trained and scheduled themselves for 12. plus if a fight was so close that it was in doubt the guys who went all out to win that last 12th round could be penalized by being exhausted.

i've always been in favor of fifteen rounds, but a comprimise for those who think 12 is the "safer" number, an official standard of 13 rounds could be acceptable to both.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Nov 2007, 16:26

Decagon wrote:The last six rounds aren't more important; they're just harder to win.

Well, if you won the last six rounds in a 12 round fight, then one could make the case that you would have won the fight if it had been 15, since you had taken control.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 03 Nov 2007, 20:19

..i feel fine...well, meaning you'd have won if it had been for fifteen, louis and conn would have shattered that assumption.

ditto marciano/walcott...who was coming on in the later rounds after marciano was doing well in the middle ones...

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Nov 2007, 22:26

Jaclem wrote:..i feel fine...well, meaning you'd have won if it had been for fifteen, louis and conn would have shattered that assumption.

ditto marciano/walcott...who was coming on in the later rounds after marciano was doing well in the middle ones...

I didn't say that that fighter "would" have won, I said you can make the case for it.