BoxRec

Vann threw the towel of Katsidis's fight with Earl

You have his name spelled "Mike Melykian" when it's "Mike Melikyan" Please correct. Also his record is now 1-0 by 4 round unanimous decision over Jimmy Rosario who's record going into the fight was 1-1 but is now 1-2 on the Saturday 5 December 2015
Osceola Heritage Center, Kissimmee, Florida, USA fight card

keithmoonhangover wrote:


Apology accepted.

keithmoonhangover wrote:The 10th round of Froch - Dirrell was also a 9-9.

So that's 6 separate professional judges, who must know less about judging a professional boxing match, than a boxrec poster.

Ah well

anton1anton wrote:You have his name spelled "Mike Melykian" when it's "Mike Melikyan" Please correct. Also his record is now 1-0 by 4 round unanimous decision over Jimmy Rosario who's record going into the fight was 1-1 but is now 1-2 on the Saturday 5 December 2015
Osceola Heritage Center, Kissimmee, Florida, USA fight card

On the towel throwing issue.

Surely if the corner chooses to withdraw their fighter the referee must respect that decision?
I'm not sure where the rule book stands on it, but it simply doesn't sit right with me.

I understand that he can disregard the doctors advice (although, it's surprising, as you would think that a medical professional should be able to have a final say on the well being of a fighters physical ability to continue taking punishment) but for a corner to attempt to remove their fighter from the fight, that should be there call and the referee shouldn't be able to over rule that surely?

bripez wrote:To be equally pedantic, Mickey Vann did not disregard a doctors advice - the corner threw in the towel and Vann threw it out and let the fight carry on.

Correct .. The ref can and on many occasions, has kicked out towels , that have come from the corner .. the doc doe'snt throw in a towel ,, and has far has i know the doc is the ONLY one who can over rule a ref and stop a fight ,, it would be a silly ref who would try and over rule a doctor , in case anything happenned . . In any case unless the docs ringside the fight cannot start ,, THE DOCS THE BOSS

An interesting towel controversy from a few years back-
http://www.BS.com/controversy- ... lar--21242

davie wrote:On the towel throwing issue.

Surely if the corner chooses to withdraw their fighter the referee must respect that decision?
I'm not sure where the rule book stands on it, but it simply doesn't sit right with me.

I understand that he can disregard the doctors advice (although, it's surprising, as you would think that a medical professional should be able to have a final say on the well being of a fighters physical ability to continue taking punishment) but for a corner to attempt to remove their fighter from the fight, that should be there call and the referee shouldn't be able to over rule that surely?

I agree, I've always thought that was strange. The corner should obviously know the boxer much better than the referee does - if they feel he should be pulled out, I don't see how the referee can disregard it. Just imagine if the ref disregarded the corner throwing in the towel, then a tragedy happened - there would be absolute uproar & rightly so.

Referees are far more likely to make a dispassionate decision with no emotional involvement to the boxer.

Boxing Prospect wrote:An interesting towel controversy from a few years back-
http://www.BS.com/controversy- ... lar--21242

Gutted, I thought that would be a link to some massage porn.

When I saw the thread Tyson-Ruddock II sprang to mind. Anyone know where to find the scorecard? Tyson alone had three points deducted and I think Ruddock might have had a point deduction too - as well as being knocked down (twice from memory.)

keithmoonhangover wrote:

ILoveHowardFoster wrote:Guys, I hate doing this, but after reading the Daws v Nieto thread, can I point out two things...

1. A Doctor cannot stop a fight. He can only ADVISE the referee to do so. If the ref doesn't want to listen to the doctor, he doesn't have to

2. There is no such thing as a 9-9 round for a point deduction. Someone HAS TO have 10 points. Therefore, it would be a 10-10 round. For example....a boxer is winning a round easily, which would usually be scored10-9 in his favour. He then has a point deducted..... That would be scored as a 10-10 round, not 9-9.

Sorry, but number two is a load of horseshit. Loads of fights have had 9-9 rounds. The 12th round of Amir Khan vs Lamont Peterson springs to mind straight away.

This

Otherwise it wouldn't be a point deduction it would be giving your opponent a point. I think people get confused with the 10 point must system thats obviously that in normal scoring someone must have 10 but a deduction is a seperate issue. The rounds scored as normal and the person who was deducted a point has that deducted so it can result in a 9-9 round if that person was winning the round.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Didn't Oli clarify this the other day on another thread?

I don't know mate. It seems pretty clear on the scorecard I posted. There are dozens of other examples.

Yes. You're both right, keith and orb. For a point deduction for fouls from the person who has otherwise won the round, the round is scored 10-9 to the winner, with -1 in the column for deductions. You can either call this 9-9 or "(10-1)-9" given that, technically, the -1 is only taken into the calculation when the final scores are calculated at the end of the fight. But it is not, on any analysis, is a 10-10 round. By contrast, if someone wins a round but, say, suffers a flash knockdown, that can be scored 10-10 (see McAuley - Blanco 1 for some good examples of that) - that is different from point deductions for fouls.

olij999 wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Didn't Oli clarify this the other day on another thread?

I don't know mate. It seems pretty clear on the scorecard I posted. There are dozens of other examples.

Yes. You're both right, keith and orb. For a point deduction for fouls from the person who has otherwise won the round, the round is scored 10-9 to the winner, with -1 in the column for deductions. You can either call this 9-9 or "(10-1)-9" given that, technically, the -1 is only taken into the calculation when the final scores are calculated at the end of the fight. But it is not, on any analysis, is a 10-10 round. By contrast, if someone wins a round but, say, suffers a flash knockdown, that can be scored 10-10 (see McAuley - Blanco 1 for some good examples of that) - that is different from point deductions for fouls.

Just watched Klitschko-Fury on tv for the first time and neither Carl Froch nor Glenn McCrory knew this when scoring the 11th round where Fury had a point deducted - which is quite surprising given how many times they've sat at ringside and scored fights on Sky (obviously McCrory much more so.) McCrory scored it 10-10.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

ILoveHowardFoster wrote:Guys, I hate doing this, but after reading the Daws v Nieto thread, can I point out two things...

1. A Doctor cannot stop a fight. He can only ADVISE the referee to do so. If the ref doesn't want to listen to the doctor, he doesn't have to

2. There is no such thing as a 9-9 round for a point deduction. Someone HAS TO have 10 points. Therefore, it would be a 10-10 round. For example....a boxer is winning a round easily, which would usually be scored10-9 in his favour. He then has a point deducted..... That would be scored as a 10-10 round, not 9-9.

Sorry, but number two is a load of horseshit. Loads of fights have had 9-9 rounds. The 12th round of Amir Khan vs Lamont Peterson springs to mind straight away.

Its not horsehit its just different organisations have different rules and some say scorein a 10 point must system which means someone has to have 10 points,i think the 10-10 is probably horseshit because if a guy is winning the round and has a point deducted then he has to be given the 9point and other guy who was losing the round gets 10 so its 10-9 rather than 10-10

thechump wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

ILoveHowardFoster wrote:Guys, I hate doing this, but after reading the Daws v Nieto thread, can I point out two things...

1. A Doctor cannot stop a fight. He can only ADVISE the referee to do so. If the ref doesn't want to listen to the doctor, he doesn't have to

2. There is no such thing as a 9-9 round for a point deduction. Someone HAS TO have 10 points. Therefore, it would be a 10-10 round. For example....a boxer is winning a round easily, which would usually be scored10-9 in his favour. He then has a point deducted..... That would be scored as a 10-10 round, not 9-9.

Sorry, but number two is a load of horseshit. Loads of fights have had 9-9 rounds. The 12th round of Amir Khan vs Lamont Peterson springs to mind straight away.

Its not horsehit its just different organisations have different rules and some say scorein a 10 point must system which means someone has to have 10 points,i think the 10-10 is probably horseshit because if a guy is winning the round and has a point deducted then he has to be given the 9point and other guy who was losing the round gets 10 so its 10-9 rather than 10-10

When the judges/referee's scores are read out sometimes you try to breakdown the scorecard. I can't ever recall an example of a scorecard that suggests and reflects a point deduction in that way.

Cholo_cws wrote:

thechump wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Sorry, but number two is a load of horseshit. Loads of fights have had 9-9 rounds. The 12th round of Amir Khan vs Lamont Peterson springs to mind straight away.

Its not horsehit its just different organisations have different rules and some say scorein a 10 point must system which means someone has to have 10 points,i think the 10-10 is probably horseshit because if a guy is winning the round and has a point deducted then he has to be given the 9point and other guy who was losing the round gets 10 so its 10-9 rather than 10-10

When the judges/referee's scores are read out sometimes you try to breakdown the scorecard. I can't ever recall an example of a scorecard that suggests and reflects a point deduction in that way.

You wouldnt be able to find out of the judges dont tell you,he would have to have a seperate score card were he can say "well that guy was gonna get 10 points but got deducted a point so i had to give this guy the 10 and thw that guy the 9 cause its a 10 point must system"

OK - if someone can post an official master scorecard (i.e. not something put together by Glenn McCrory) which records, in a round where the referee deducted a point from a fighter for a foul, a 10-10 round after deductions, that would be very interesting.

thechump wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

ILoveHowardFoster wrote:Guys, I hate doing this, but after reading the Daws v Nieto thread, can I point out two things...

1. A Doctor cannot stop a fight. He can only ADVISE the referee to do so. If the ref doesn't want to listen to the doctor, he doesn't have to

2. There is no such thing as a 9-9 round for a point deduction. Someone HAS TO have 10 points. Therefore, it would be a 10-10 round. For example....a boxer is winning a round easily, which would usually be scored10-9 in his favour. He then has a point deducted..... That would be scored as a 10-10 round, not 9-9.

Sorry, but number two is a load of horseshit. Loads of fights have had 9-9 rounds. The 12th round of Amir Khan vs Lamont Peterson springs to mind straight away.

Its not horsehit its just different organisations have different rules and some say scorein a 10 point must system which means someone has to have 10 points,i think the 10-10 is probably horseshit because if a guy is winning the round and has a point deducted then he has to be given the 9point and other guy who was losing the round gets 10 so its 10-9 rather than 10-10

I'm sorry, but I have never seen that, under any organisation - you are saying that if a guy is winning a round but gets deducted one point, he is converted to the loser of the round (as it goes 10-9 the other way). That means you are imposing a two-point swing (from 10-9 to 9-10) for a one point deduction, and that is why no rules that I have ever seen work like that. That is why it would be a 9-9 round (or, very strictly in some jurisdictions, a (10-1)-9 round) in those circumstances. However, if you can provide a link to the rules of any organisation which back up your view that a 10-9 round gets converted to 9-10, I would genuinely be very interested.

olij999 wrote:

thechump wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Sorry, but number two is a load of horseshit. Loads of fights have had 9-9 rounds. The 12th round of Amir Khan vs Lamont Peterson springs to mind straight away.

Its not horsehit its just different organisations have different rules and some say scorein a 10 point must system which means someone has to have 10 points,i think the 10-10 is probably horseshit because if a guy is winning the round and has a point deducted then he has to be given the 9point and other guy who was losing the round gets 10 so its 10-9 rather than 10-10

I'm sorry, but I have never seen that, under any organisation - you are saying that if a guy is winning a round but gets deducted one point, he is converted to the loser of the round (as it goes 10-9 the other way). That means you are imposing a two-point swing (from 10-9 to 9-10) for a one point deduction, and that is why no rules that I have ever seen work like that. That is why it would be a 9-9 round (or, very strictly in some jurisdictions, a (10-1)-9 round) in those circumstances. However, if you can provide a link to the rules of any organisation which back up your view that a 10-9 round gets converted to 9-10, I would genuinely be very interested.

Im wrong,sorry,i was thinkin of the 10 point must system but if the winner of a round got a point deducted the round would be scored 10-10. I know a few organisations have different rules but i think the IBF is the 10 pms.

thechump wrote:

olij999 wrote:

thechump wrote: Its not horsehit its just different organisations have different rules and some say scorein a 10 point must system which means someone has to have 10 points,i think the 10-10 is probably horseshit because if a guy is winning the round and has a point deducted then he has to be given the 9point and other guy who was losing the round gets 10 so its 10-9 rather than 10-10

I'm sorry, but I have never seen that, under any organisation - you are saying that if a guy is winning a round but gets deducted one point, he is converted to the loser of the round (as it goes 10-9 the other way). That means you are imposing a two-point swing (from 10-9 to 9-10) for a one point deduction, and that is why no rules that I have ever seen work like that. That is why it would be a 9-9 round (or, very strictly in some jurisdictions, a (10-1)-9 round) in those circumstances. However, if you can provide a link to the rules of any organisation which back up your view that a 10-9 round gets converted to 9-10, I would genuinely be very interested.

Im wrong,sorry,i was thinkin of the 10 point must system but if the winner of a round got a point deducted the round would be scored 10-10. I know a few organisations have different rules but i think the IBF is the 10 pms.

You're right that it is still referred to as the 10 point must system in Britain and pretty much everywhere - but it is a daft name as it really means "winner of round must get 10 points, except when he's had a point deducted for fouls". Mind you, the latter is a much less catchy name...

olij999 wrote:

thechump wrote:

olij999 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have never seen that, under any organisation - you are saying that if a guy is winning a round but gets deducted one point, he is converted to the loser of the round (as it goes 10-9 the other way). That means you are imposing a two-point swing (from 10-9 to 9-10) for a one point deduction, and that is why no rules that I have ever seen work like that. That is why it would be a 9-9 round (or, very strictly in some jurisdictions, a (10-1)-9 round) in those circumstances. However, if you can provide a link to the rules of any organisation which back up your view that a 10-9 round gets converted to 9-10, I would genuinely be very interested.

Im wrong,sorry,i was thinkin of the 10 point must system but if the winner of a round got a point deducted the round would be scored 10-10. I know a few organisations have different rules but i think the IBF is the 10 pms.

You're right that it is still referred to as the 10 point must system in Britain and pretty much everywhere - but it is a daft name as it really means "winner of round must get 10 points, except when he's had a point deducted for fouls". Mind you, the latter is a much less catchy name...

Wasnt till you pointed that out that i noticed it would be 2 points deducted ha

ILoveHowardFoster wrote:

orbtastic wrote:The ref's kicked the towel out before now.

Foreman/Cotto seems to be an obvious one.

Micky Vann did it with Michael Katsidis v someone over here as well. Can't remember the British guy he fought

Graham Earl.

thechump wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

ILoveHowardFoster wrote:Guys, I hate doing this, but after reading the Daws v Nieto thread, can I point out two things...

1. A Doctor cannot stop a fight. He can only ADVISE the referee to do so. If the ref doesn't want to listen to the doctor, he doesn't have to

2. There is no such thing as a 9-9 round for a point deduction. Someone HAS TO have 10 points. Therefore, it would be a 10-10 round. For example....a boxer is winning a round easily, which would usually be scored10-9 in his favour. He then has a point deducted..... That would be scored as a 10-10 round, not 9-9.

Sorry, but number two is a load of horseshit. Loads of fights have had 9-9 rounds. The 12th round of Amir Khan vs Lamont Peterson springs to mind straight away.

Its not horsehit its just different organisations have different rules and some say scorein a 10 point must system which means someone has to have 10 points,i think the 10-10 is probably horseshit because if a guy is winning the round and has a point deducted then he has to be given the 9point and other guy who was losing the round gets 10 so its 10-9 rather than 10-10

Not being arsey, but it is horseshit. IloveHowardFoster said there was no such thing as a 9-9 round and I've shown evidence that there is.

crusader wrote:I guess scoring conventions may vary by area and organization, but I've always thought a round like that was generally to be scored 9-9, with the 10 point must meaning that the winner must receive 10 points barring a point deduction.

absolutely...so, if a fighter (a) was dominating an opponent (b) and had knocked him (b) down once .... then, comitted a serious foul himself (a) and was deducted 2 points the score for the round would be as follows.....

Boxer a -8
Boxer b - 8