BoxRec

crusader wrote:Can you post these rules?

If everything is even aside from a knockdown, and knockdowns are worth a point each, where do the rules mandate that the boxer who scored the KD wins the round by two points?

Go read them.

A fighter scores a knockdown he generally wins 10-8. There can be very, very rare exceptions but we're talking <1pc.

If knockdowns are exchaned then they cancel each other out meaning a judge will go back to a 10-9 for the fighter he favours.

A 3rd knockdown thereafter (2-1 in kds) is just the same as 1 knockdown. 10-8.

A 4th knockdown (3-1) becomes 10-7.

There are many differing explanations online of how to score a fight, but I'm not sure which you're referring to when you say 'the rules'.

It was my belief that a KD generally means one point off the boxer who is floored, which I could be wrong about, so when a single KD is all that splits the boxers a two point disparity isn't mandated; maybe you could post the set of rules you recommended and highlight where it indicates that this round must be scored 10-8.

crusader wrote:There are many differing explanations online of how to score a fight, but I'm not sure which you're referring to when you say 'the rules'.

It was my belief that a KD generally means one point off the boxer who is floored, which I could be wrong about, so when a single KD is all that splits the boxers a two point disparity isn't mandated; maybe you could post the set of rules you recommended and highlight where it indicates that this round must be scored 10-8.

I don't think anyone said it must be scored 10-8, we said most of the time it would be. There could be exceptions, but generally speaking this is what should happen. If, however, the round was literally 100% even aside from the knockdowns, and the fighter who was dropped twice was never hurt, or maybe if he hurt his opponent with the single knockdown and he wasn't hurt himself, then it could certainly be scored 10-9.

crusader wrote:There are many differing explanations online of how to score a fight, but I'm not sure which you're referring to when you say 'the rules'.

It was my belief that a KD generally means one point off the boxer who is floored, which I could be wrong about, so when a single KD is all that splits the boxers a two point disparity isn't mandated; maybe you could post the set of rules you recommended and highlight where it indicates that this round must be scored 10-8.

Boxrec even has a judging section in their "rules" page.

If a guy scores 2-1 in knockdowns its no different from winning 1-0 in knockdowns. It's pretty simple really, both are 10-8s.

The article on BoxRec is fairly iffy and reads more like an opinion rather than an official set of rules, as it says that a fighter should win a round 10-8 just for scoring a KD. But what if they score a flash KD then get throughly outboxed for 2:50 of the round? What if they're pummeled around the ring for the same amount of time but don't go down? Does some rule mandate that these are to be 10-8 rounds too? While it's typical to score a round 10-8 when one boxer floors the other once and isn't drop himself, I'd say in most cases the boxer who scores the KD clearly gets the better of his opponent apart from the KD and I also think that people tend to hastily default to 10-8s while not placing enough weight on what happened apart from the KD.

Now maybe most people believe that a single KD should for some reason produce a two point disparity in a case like this where there is nothing else to split the boxers, but multiple posters have suggested that this is a rule when I have doubts that it is.

crusader wrote:The article on BoxRec is fairly iffy and reads more like an opinion rather than an official set of rules, as it says that a fighter should win a round 10-8 just for scoring a KD. But what if they score a flash KD then get throughly outboxed for 2:50 of the round? What if they're pummeled around the ring for the same amount of time but don't go down? Does some rule mandate that these are to be 10-8 rounds too?

Now maybe most people believe that a single KD should produce a two point disparity in a case like this where there is nothing else to split the boxers, but multiple posters have suggested that this is a rule when I have doubts that it is.

in your example it can be scored 10-9 instead of 10-8 at the judges discretion.

It's out of the ordinary though. Like scoring a round 10-8 without a knockdown (I scored r12 Kovalev-Hopkins 10-8) you need very good reason for awarding the extra point.

In the 2-1 knockdown example it wuld be near on impossible to make the case for a guy only losing 10-9 on the basis he's been floored twice and couldn't possibly have dominated the round.

How many points are KDs supposed to be worth? If it's one, what part of 'the rules' mandates that the boxer who gets dropped one more time than his opponent should lose the round by two points when all else is equal?

crusader wrote:How many points are KDs supposed to be worth? If it's one, what part of 'the rules' mandates that the boxer who gets dropped one more time than his opponent should lose the round by two points when all else is equal?

I don't have rule book at hand but it's common knowledge.

Knockdown 10-8
2 knockdowns 10-7
3 knockdowns 10-6

The first encounter of Pacquiao vs Marquez, JMM was dropped 3 times in round 1. 2 judges scored it 10-6. The other scored it 10-7. That judge later admitted having made a mistake, it should gave been 10-6. had that judge scored it correctly it would have resulted in Pacquiao by decision instead of a draw.

crusader wrote:How many points are KDs supposed to be worth? If it's one, what part of 'the rules' mandates that the boxer who gets dropped one more time than his opponent should lose the round by two points when all else is equal?

Are you really arguing this still? Come on.. You're not new. Let's just re-invent mathematics too.

Ricky_ wrote:

crusader wrote:How many points are KDs supposed to be worth? If it's one, what part of 'the rules' mandates that the boxer who gets dropped one more time than his opponent should lose the round by two points when all else is equal?

I don't have rule book at hand but it's common knowledge.

Knockdown 10-8
2 knockdowns 10-7
3 knockdowns 10-6

The first encounter of Pacquiao vs Marquez, JMM was dropped 3 times in round 1. 2 judges scored it 10-6. The other scored it 10-7. That judge later admitted having made a mistake, it should gave been 10-6. had that judge scored it correctly it would have resulted in Pacquiao by decision instead of a draw.

I was of the belief that a fighter typically won the round 10-8 if they dropped their opponent and got the better of the other parts of the round, and in the scores you post it's clear that for every additional KD the disparity increases by one rather than two. Of course in most cases the fighter who drops their opponent tends to get the better of the rest of the round, which is likely one reason for the commonality of 10-8 rounds.

You mentioned 'the rules' but you've yet to post anything authoritative and are just giving your opinion as I am. If you are going to suggest that people are scoring a round incorrectly by referring them to 'the rules', you should provide stronger support for your position that it's against the rules to score this round 10-8 when all that splits the boxers is a single knockdown.

Are you really arguing this still? Come on.. You're not new. Let's just re-invent mathematics too.

I'm not reinventing anything, multiple others stated that they'd score it 10-9, and perhaps you could address the substance of my posts. For all the talk of scoring the round 10-8 being a 'rule'' or 'technically correct' I haven't seen much support for that other than the fact that people often score the round that way. That doesn't make it a rule or technically correct though, and I think the appropriate scoring of this type of round is debatable.

Once again, I don't think I have seen anyone claim that the round must be scored 10-8, we have simply said that most judges would score it 10-8 in most scenarios. You're finding arguments where there are none. Depending on a variety of other factors, the round could be scored 10-9. It's just that the majority of the time judges will say that two of the knockdowns cancel each other out, leaving one knockdown. Judges are generally instructed to award the boxer scoring the knockdown 10-8. Therefore, most judges would score the round 10-8 for the boxer who scored two knockdowns. I do suspect, however, that since it is an unusual scenario some judges would still score it 10-9.

rampage wrote:Once again, I don't think I have seen anyone claim that the round must be scored 10-8, we have simply said that most judges would score it 10-8 in most scenarios. You're finding arguments where there are none. Depending on a variety of other factors, the round could be scored 10-9. It's just that the majority of the time judges will say that two of the knockdowns cancel each other out, leaving one knockdown. Judges are generally instructed to award the boxer scoring the knockdown 10-8. Therefore, most judges would score the round 10-8 for the boxer who scored two knockdowns. I do suspect, however, that since it is an unusual scenario some judges would still score it 10-9.

that would be wrong, because the 3rd knockdown would essentially count for nothing. When it's 1 knockdown each, the judges pretty much need to pick a 10-9 winner. If a guy is winning the round and scores a 3rd knockdown (making it 2-1) and still only wins 10-9, the 3rd KD counted for nothing.

Ricky_ wrote:

rampage wrote:Once again, I don't think I have seen anyone claim that the round must be scored 10-8, we have simply said that most judges would score it 10-8 in most scenarios. You're finding arguments where there are none. Depending on a variety of other factors, the round could be scored 10-9. It's just that the majority of the time judges will say that two of the knockdowns cancel each other out, leaving one knockdown. Judges are generally instructed to award the boxer scoring the knockdown 10-8. Therefore, most judges would score the round 10-8 for the boxer who scored two knockdowns. I do suspect, however, that since it is an unusual scenario some judges would still score it 10-9.

that would be wrong, because the 3rd knockdown would essentially count for nothing. When it's 1 knockdown each, the judges pretty much need to pick a 10-9 winner. If a guy is winning the round and scores a 3rd knockdown (making it 2-1) and still only wins 10-9, the 3rd KD counted for nothing.

I think that's probably the best alternate way to put it.

rampage wrote:Once again, I don't think I have seen anyone claim that the round must be scored 10-8, we have simply said that most judges would score it 10-8 in most scenarios. You're finding arguments where there are none. Depending on a variety of other factors, the round could be scored 10-9. It's just that the majority of the time judges will say that two of the knockdowns cancel each other out, leaving one knockdown. Judges are generally instructed to award the boxer scoring the knockdown 10-8. Therefore, most judges would score the round 10-8 for the boxer who scored two knockdowns. I do suspect, however, that since it is an unusual scenario some judges would still score it 10-9.

Ricky posted "You don't know the rules" in response to people mentioning that they'd score the round 10-9, which to me strongly suggests that he thinks the round has to be scored 10-8 and that if it's not it's an indication of incompetence, a sentiment apparent in his response to your post. I'm not sure why you'd think I'm finding arguments where there are none given this, though I'm not surprised considering how often you incorrectly accused me of creating strawmen in the Kovalev-Hopkins thread.

You've explained what most judges may do in this situation and I'm already aware of that, but my argument is simply that they aren't required to do so by a rule, meaning that Ricky's comment and comments suggesting that there is a uniquely correct way to score the round are questionable in my view.

that would be wrong, because the 3rd knockdown would essentially count for nothing. When it's 1 knockdown each, the judges pretty much need to pick a 10-9 winner. If a guy is winning the round and scores a 3rd knockdown (making it 2-1) and still only wins 10-9, the 3rd KD counted for nothing.

The third knockdown would count for something, otherwise the round would be scored even considering there was nothing else to split them....I thought that was obvious.

And based on what do judges 'need' to pick a winner if the boxers are floored that same number of times? Even rounds are permitted and have been used loads of times.

AZOSI wrote:50 Bucks and Beer on the line.

Fighter A gets knocked down in a round 1 time, Fighter B gets knocked down 2 times in the same round. Assuming the rest of the round is even between knockdowns, what is the correct scoring of the round?

Each knockdown counts as 2 points, fighter A has 2 points up so he still wins the round 10-8 as one knockdown cancelled out the other but still left fighter A with the advantage.

crusader wrote:

rampage wrote:Once again, I don't think I have seen anyone claim that the round must be scored 10-8, we have simply said that most judges would score it 10-8 in most scenarios. You're finding arguments where there are none. Depending on a variety of other factors, the round could be scored 10-9. It's just that the majority of the time judges will say that two of the knockdowns cancel each other out, leaving one knockdown. Judges are generally instructed to award the boxer scoring the knockdown 10-8. Therefore, most judges would score the round 10-8 for the boxer who scored two knockdowns. I do suspect, however, that since it is an unusual scenario some judges would still score it 10-9.

Ricky posted "You don't know the rules" in response to people mentioning that they'd score the round 10-9, which to me strongly suggests that he thinks the round has to be scored 10-8 and that if it's not it's an indication of incompetence, a sentiment apparent in his response to your post. I'm not sure why you'd think I'm finding arguments where there are none given this, though I'm not surprised considering how often you incorrectly accused me of creating strawmen in the Kovalev-Hopkins thread.

You've explained what most judges may do in this situation and I'm already aware of that, but my argument is simply that they aren't required to do so by a rule, meaning that Ricky's comment and comments suggesting that there is a uniquely correct way to score the round are questionable in my view.

that would be wrong, because the 3rd knockdown would essentially count for nothing. When it's 1 knockdown each, the judges pretty much need to pick a 10-9 winner. If a guy is winning the round and scores a 3rd knockdown (making it 2-1) and still only wins 10-9, the 3rd KD counted for nothing.

The third knockdown would count for something, otherwise the round would be scored even considering there was nothing else to split them....I thought that was obvious.

And based on what do judges 'need' to pick a winner if the boxers are floored that same number of times? Even rounds are permitted and have been used loads of times.

Scoring rounds even is considered poor judging. I know you'll ask me for a source, and i know they are out there so you'll need to go find them yourself but the org's give directives to their judges to avoid scoring 10-10 rounds at all costs, and unless absolutely necessarry.

In the example given by the OP is just a "standard round" with nothing out of the ordinary barring the 3 knockdowns. A "standard round" 99%+ of the time is scored 10-9 1 way or the other.

Damn you would swear that scoring is harder than brain surgery.The way some of you
are carrying on

10-8.

3 identical KD. 1 apiece cancels and you score the round like no KDs happened. 3rd KD is automatic 10-8.

Of course, I haven't seen a round with 3 identical KDS...

crusader wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

crusader wrote:How many points are KDs supposed to be worth? If it's one, what part of 'the rules' mandates that the boxer who gets dropped one more time than his opponent should lose the round by two points when all else is equal?

I don't have rule book at hand but it's common knowledge.

Knockdown 10-8
2 knockdowns 10-7
3 knockdowns 10-6

The first encounter of Pacquiao vs Marquez, JMM was dropped 3 times in round 1. 2 judges scored it 10-6. The other scored it 10-7. That judge later admitted having made a mistake, it should gave been 10-6. had that judge scored it correctly it would have resulted in Pacquiao by decision instead of a draw.

I was of the belief that a fighter typically won the round 10-8 if they dropped their opponent and got the better of the other parts of the round, and in the scores you post it's clear that for every additional KD the disparity increases by one rather than two. Of course in most cases the fighter who drops their opponent tends to get the better of the rest of the round, which is likely one reason for the commonality of 10-8 rounds.

You mentioned 'the rules' but you've yet to post anything authoritative and are just giving your opinion as I am. If you are going to suggest that people are scoring a round incorrectly by referring them to 'the rules', you should provide stronger support for your position that it's against the rules to score this round 10-8 when all that splits the boxers is a single knockdown.

Are you really arguing this still? Come on.. You're not new. Let's just re-invent mathematics too.

I'm not reinventing anything, multiple others stated that they'd score it 10-9, and perhaps you could address the substance of my posts. For all the talk of scoring the round 10-8 being a 'rule'' or 'technically correct' I haven't seen much support for that other than the fact that people often score the round that way. That doesn't make it a rule or technically correct though, and I think the appropriate scoring of this type of round is debatable.

Ricky also said in a different post that "in your example it can be scored 10-9 instead of 10-8 at the judges discretion. It's out of the ordinary though." However, it does now seem that he is arguing that it must be 10-8, I will give you that.

No point in going back to the Kovalev-Hopkins thread. You were right, I was wrong. Good job. However, you were absolutely creating strawmen by arguing against points I didn't make in that thread.

Nonetheless, as far as this topic goes, I think we are on the same page. We agree that most judges would score this round 10-8, and we also agree that it isn't 100% mandatory that they do so, depending on other factors within the round. However, as Ricky pointed out, most commissions (at least from the meetings I have attended or been made aware of) do instruct their judges to not score even rounds unless it is absolutely necessary and to give extra points for knockdowns. I understand that the knockdown, in your opinion, is what would make the round not even and that they could simply use that as the distinguishing factor for a 10-9 round, I'm just saying that, from what I have seen and heard, most judges and commissions would instruct otherwise.

Scoring rounds even is considered poor judging. I know you'll ask me for a source, and i know they are out there so you'll need to go find them yourself but the org's give directives to their judges to avoid scoring 10-10 rounds at all costs, and unless absolutely necessarry.

In the example given by the OP is just a "standard round" with nothing out of the ordinary barring the 3 knockdowns. A "standard round" 99%+ of the time is scored 10-9 1 way or the other.

Who considers scoring even rounds poor judging? It's done very frequently in Europe and South America and I think it's often appropriate; in my view it's best to score a round even when you think it was evenly fought.

And ya, when you tell others to read the rules I expect you to do a better job of showing that according to those rules the round can only be correctly scored one way. Moreover, what exactly are 'the rules' when fights are scored differently around the world, with one example being half-point scoring?

Ricky also said in a different post that "in your example it can be scored 10-9 instead of 10-8 at the judges discretion. It's out of the ordinary though." However, it does now seem that he is arguing that it must be 10-8, I will give you that.

No point in going back to the Kovalev-Hopkins thread. You were right, I was wrong. Good job. However, you were absolutely creating strawmen by arguing against points I didn't make in that thread.

Nonetheless, as far as this topic goes, I think we are on the same page. We agree that most judges would score this round 10-8, and we also agree that it isn't 100% mandatory that they do so, depending on other factors within the round. However, as Ricky pointed out, most commissions (at least from the meetings I have attended or been made aware of) do instruct their judges to not score even rounds unless it is absolutely necessary and to give extra points for knockdowns. I understand that the knockdown, in your opinion, is what would make the round not even and that they could simply use that as the distinguishing factor for a 10-9 round, I'm just saying that, from what I have seen and heard, most judges and commissions would instruct otherwise.

First, I believe Ricky posted the bit you've quoted in response to examples I gave of someone being dropped but dominating the remainder of the round, and later in his post he says 'in the 2-1 example' as if it were different to what he was addressing earlier. Second, based on all his posts herein I think it's obvious that he's arguing that the round must be scored 10-8 and that doing otherwise is incorrect, but as is your nature based on our interactions you're quick to throw strawman accusations when they're inappropriate and I think Kovalev thread is relevant not because Kovalev trounced Hopkins and won every round but because it provides examples of this. To give one, I posted the bit below inquiring about your reasons for reducing Kovalev's success to poor opposition but not doing the same for Andrade even though his opposition is fairly poor:

"You criticize Kovalev's opponents and claim that much of his success is down to their mediocrity, but what about Andrade? His best win is over Vanes, another fighter who is fairly unproven himself, and aside from that his best opponents are probably Grady Brewer and Freddy Hernandez."

At no point here did I suggest that you thought Andrade's opposition has been anything other than limited. Yet even though my post above was posed as a question and accused you of nothing other than criticizing Kovalev's opponents and reducing his success to their mediocrity while not doing the same for Andrade, which was clearly the case, for some reason you incorrectly thought that I accused you of suggesting that Andrade hadn't fought limited opposition:

"Yes, Andrade has fought limited opposition as well. Again, I never said he hasn't. You seem to have a habit of arguing against points that I never made, again coming back to that whole "missing distinctions" issue."

I think overall we're on a similar page. I'm certainly not trying to suggest that the round needs to be scored 10-9 rather than 10-8 (and to make it clear to you I'm not suggesting that you've accused me of doing this) but I think Ricky believes his position is much stronger than it is, and if someone is going to condescendingly tell people that they haven't read the rules, also not keeping in mind that scoring is done differently across the world, it weakens their argument when the best they do in terms of referring people to those rules is posting the flawed scoring article on BoxRec that reads like an opinion piece rather than something authoritative.

crusader wrote:

Scoring rounds even is considered poor judging. I know you'll ask me for a source, and i know they are out there so you'll need to go find them yourself but the org's give directives to their judges to avoid scoring 10-10 rounds at all costs, and unless absolutely necessarry.

In the example given by the OP is just a "standard round" with nothing out of the ordinary barring the 3 knockdowns. A "standard round" 99%+ of the time is scored 10-9 1 way or the other.

Who considers scoring even rounds poor judging? It's done very frequently in Europe and South America and I think it's often appropriate; in my view it's best to score a round even when you think it was evenly fought.

And ya, when you tell others to read the rules I expect you to do a better job of showing that according to those rules the round can only be correctly scored one way. Moreover, what exactly are 'the rules' when fights are scored differently around the world, with one example being half-point scoring?

Ricky also said in a different post that "in your example it can be scored 10-9 instead of 10-8 at the judges discretion. It's out of the ordinary though." However, it does now seem that he is arguing that it must be 10-8, I will give you that.

No point in going back to the Kovalev-Hopkins thread. You were right, I was wrong. Good job. However, you were absolutely creating strawmen by arguing against points I didn't make in that thread.

Nonetheless, as far as this topic goes, I think we are on the same page. We agree that most judges would score this round 10-8, and we also agree that it isn't 100% mandatory that they do so, depending on other factors within the round. However, as Ricky pointed out, most commissions (at least from the meetings I have attended or been made aware of) do instruct their judges to not score even rounds unless it is absolutely necessary and to give extra points for knockdowns. I understand that the knockdown, in your opinion, is what would make the round not even and that they could simply use that as the distinguishing factor for a 10-9 round, I'm just saying that, from what I have seen and heard, most judges and commissions would instruct otherwise.

First, I believe Ricky posted the bit you've quoted in response to examples I gave of someone being dropped but dominating the remainder of the round, and later in his post he says 'in the 2-1 example' as if it were different to what he was addressing earlier. Second, based on all his posts herein I think it's obvious that he's arguing that the round must be scored 10-8 and that doing otherwise is incorrect, but as is your nature based on our interactions you're quick to throw strawman accusations when they're inappropriate and I think Kovalev thread is relevant not because Kovalev trounced Hopkins and won every round but because it provides examples of this. To give one, I posted the bit below inquiring about your reasons for reducing Kovalev's success to poor opposition but not doing the same for Andrade even though his opposition is fairly poor:

"You criticize Kovalev's opponents and claim that much of his success is down to their mediocrity, but what about Andrade? His best win is over Vanes, another fighter who is fairly unproven himself, and aside from that his best opponents are probably Grady Brewer and Freddy Hernandez."

At no point here did I suggest that you thought Andrade's opposition has been anything other than limited. Yet even though my post above was posed as a question and accused you of nothing other than criticizing Kovalev's opponents and reducing his success to their mediocrity while not doing the same for Andrade, which was clearly the case, for some reason you incorrectly thought that I accused you of suggesting that Andrade hadn't fought limited opposition:

"Yes, Andrade has fought limited opposition as well. Again, I never said he hasn't. You seem to have a habit of arguing against points that I never made, again coming back to that whole "missing distinctions" issue."

I think overall we're on a similar page. I'm certainly not trying to suggest that the round needs to be scored 10-9 rather than 10-8 (and to make it clear to you I'm not suggesting that you've accused me of doing this) but I think Ricky believes his position is much stronger than it is, and if someone is going to condescendingly tell people that they haven't read the rules, also not keeping in mind that scoring is done differently across the world, it weakens their argument when the best they do in terms of referring people to those rules is posting the flawed scoring article on BoxRec that reads like an opinion piece rather than something authoritative.

Oops, you are correct about the quote I posted--he was referring to your other example regarding only one knockdown.

Anyhow, speaking of being condescending, there isn't any need to "make it clear to (me)" that that you aren't accusing me of that. I already acknowledged that we agree on that point. Honestly, I'm not sure that there is anything we disagree on regarding this theoretical round. If there is, what is it? We agree that most judges score it 10-8, and that it would be acceptable to score it 10-9 depending on circumstances. We agree that judging a round is subjective. We agree that judges are instructed to award an extra point for a knockdown. So, why are we only on a similar page and not the same page?

As for the Kovalev thing (as I already said, I don't feel like this needs to be revisited since we basically went in circles originally and likely will again, but since you insist on accusing me of throwing out false strawmen accusations in a debate from months ago rather than staying on the topic at hand, as I was trying to do), while I can't recall you ever directly accusing me of something I didn't say, there were several times when you implied that I said or believed something other than what I did, then argued to that point. Posing something as a question rather than a direct accusation doesn't change the fact that you were trying to use things I didn't say to strengthen your argument.

"You said he sucks relative to other successful pros, so you are speaking about success." -OK, here you actually are accusing me of something I didn't say or believe, even when I had already clearly explained that I consider success and talent two different things.

"You mention Chavez, but do you actually think it's safe to say that he dominates Kovalev? The same guy who had close fights with Zbik and Vera? The same guy with the shortcomings in footwork, defense, and technique that you claim Kovalev has?" -Never did I say Chavez dominates, I said I thought he might get him. Clearly I underrated Kovalev, but of course we aren't debating that aspect anymore. We are now debating semantics and logical fallacies for some reason.

I mentioned the Kovalev thread because it provides several examples of what you've done in this thread, which is incorrectly accuse me of arguing against a point that was never made. We probably will go in circles again but if you don't want to you don't have to

As for the Kovalev thing (as I already said, I don't feel like this needs to be revisited since we basically went in circles originally and likely will again, but since you insist on accusing me of throwing out false strawmen accusations in a debate from months ago rather than staying on the topic at hand, as I was trying to do), while I can't recall you ever directly accusing me of something I didn't say, there were several times when you implied that I said or believed something other than what I did, then argued to that point. Posing something as a question rather than a direct accusation doesn't change the fact that you were trying to use things I didn't say to strengthen your argument.

How was I trying to use something you didn't say about Andrade to strengthen my argument? You explicitly claimed that I was arguing against a point you hadn't made when all I did was inquirer about why you reduced Kovalev's success to his opposition yet held a relatively high opinion of Andrade when his opposition had been no better; you later provided reasons for your position, which is what I was after.

I made no false accusations and did nothing remotely disingenuous there.

"You said he sucks relative to other successful pros, so you are speaking about success." -OK, here you actually are accusing me of something I didn't say or believe, even when I had already clearly explained that I consider success and talent two different things.

What did I accuse you of saying that you didn't? You were the first person to mention success and you did so in your inital response to me:

"I don't think it's any secret that the light heavyweight division is very weak at the moment, so yeah--pretty much every light heavy sucks right now or is older than the hills (mind you, when I say sucks, I'm comparing them to other successful pros."

So no, I wasn't accusing you of something you never said and since you explicitly mentioned that you were only comparing Kovalev to those you consider successful and mentioned success several more times before I posted that bit, I don't see a problem with stating that you were talking about success, which of course doesn't mean that you weren't also talking about other things.

"You mention Chavez, but do you actually think it's safe to say that he dominates Kovalev? The same guy who had close fights with Zbik and Vera? The same guy with the shortcomings in footwork, defense, and technique that you claim Kovalev has?" -Never did I say Chavez dominates, I said I thought he might get him. Clearly I underrated Kovalev, but of course we aren't debating that aspect anymore. We are now debating semantics and logical fallacies for some reason.

Earlier in that thread you stated "There are other divisions where he may crack the top 5, but he would get thoroughly dominated by guys in the top 3-5, such as super middle and jr. middle." I then asked you who the fighters at 168 would be and your response was "For super middle, Ward and Froch would beat him for sure, and I think there's a good chance even someone like Chavez Jr. gets him". Since you mentioned Ward, Froch, and Chavez but weren't as clear in Chavez's case, I asked whether you considered Chavez to be one of the 'top 3-5' that Kovalev 'would get thoroughly dominated by', and at no point was I implying that you claimed Chavez would dominate Kovalev--I asked because your comments made it unclear.

Considering you posted that 3-5 guys would dominate Kovalev then listed 3 names, including Chavez's, in response to my question about who those 3-5 would be, I think it was pretty reasonable to further question you about Chavez's inclusion and whether you naming him meant that he was someone you thought would dominate Kov.

OK. Again, we will just go in circles here and there is no point. We clearly have different opinions on the use of rhetoric to make it seem like someone says/thinks/believes something other than he does. I'm not saying this was necessarily your intent, but I do believe this was the result.

As for this thread--you are correct, I mistook what Ricky was trying to say. As I already admitted, I thought he was referring to the 3 knockdown round when he said it could be 10-9, but he was, as you correctly stated, referring to the 1 knockdown round that you mentioned. I don't think there is any need to discuss that further either--we agree that I mistook what he wrote.

So, getting back to this topic, I will ask again...which part do we not agree on concerning the scoring of the 3 knockdown round? You say that we are only on a similar page and not the same page.

tiny_acres wrote:Damn you would swear that scoring is harder than brain surgery.The way some of you
are carrying on

So, getting back to this topic, I will ask again...which part do we not agree on concerning the scoring of the 3 knockdown round? You say that we are only on a similar page and not the same page.

You mentioned that you'd typically score the round 10-8 whereas I'd score it 10-9, and hence it seems like in some respect we're thinking differently about the round and how it should be scored.