How would you score this round?

[SeanBrennan]

10 points must….

ah cheers

[SeanBrennan]

I'd copy O'Connor's card, he never gets it wrong...

[Controversial]

I'd copy O'Connor's card, he never gets it wrong...

7-10 to fighter B then

[SeanBrennan]

I'd copy O'Connor's card, he never gets it wrong...

7-10 to fighter B then

hahahhaa winning!

[nickcat0]

I'm not sure, and the worrying thing is, judging by some of the decisions over the years, neither are the actual real-life boxing judges.

[Controversial]

I'm not sure, and the worrying thing is, judging by some of the decisions over the years, neither are the actual real-life boxing judges.

If we go by the BBBoC rules it should be 10-10 or 10-9 for fighter A. So even with a knockdown fighter B doesn’t win the round. What we see with the poll is a third of people think fighter B wins the round. Some even saying they know it’s wrong but that’s how they would score it. Or long term fans saying they have no idea how to score it. Add to that the numerous times I’ve heard so called experts on TV/radio say the round should be scored 10-8 as there’s been a knockdown therefore completely ignoring what else happened, it’s no surprise we see decisions go the wrong way. A 10-9 round that is scored 8-10 on three scorecards would completely skew a scorecard if it went the distance, that’s a 9 point swing just in one round.

[olij999]

God, this is tedious - we have this every year. In about 2014 (I think) I was part of a group of four people on the BBBofC who updated the Referees Guide. We put examples of each scenario (including those set out by Coco in this thread) in there. In short, you score the round based on the usual criteria, ignoring the knockdowns, and then adjust by a point for each knockdown. So in the example, if it would have been a 10-8 round to A until B scores the flash KD, it becomes 10-9.

Do British referees always follow this? Having now left my local Area Council on the BBBofC but remaining bound by confidentiality, the best I can say is work it out for yourselves. Are the referees obliged to follow it? That is another of my bugbears - this is the Referees Guide - so it is guidance, not regulation. So that always gives referees / judges a way out. I hate that. One point, or a bad scorecard, can change a fighter's life - it can be the difference between him being set for life or working on the bins when he is 50 (not that there is anything wrong with that). The Referees Guide should be published online in the same way as the BBBofC regs, and they should become regulations, not guidance.

So next time someone on the TV says "That's an automatic 10-8 round", please slap your palm against your forehead with me and shout "Aaaaaaaaaaagh".

[skanksta]

10-8

Should be 10-8 for dominance, 10-7 for the KD and back to 10-8 for getting a KD back.
Also, best describes a dominant heavy KD round vs a flash KD.

[Controversial]

I was part of a group of four people on the BBBofC who updated the Referees Guide.

Are the referees obliged to follow it? That is another of my bugbears - this is the Referees Guide - so it is guidance, not regulation. So that always gives referees / judges a way out. I hate that.

The Referees Guide should be published online in the same way as the BBBofC regs, and they should become regulations, not guidance.

If it’s only guidance on what criteria do they question a judge about their card? IJL was demoted as an A Star ref based on his scoring of Taylor and Caterall.

[margaret thatcher]

thank gawd for that too, ijl was awful

[SeanBrennan]

10 points must….

Is this true. Last night on the Berlanga undercard, Vargas v Rodriguez had a round 2 where Vargas knocked Rodriguez down in round 2, but the ref deducted 2 points from Vargas for hitting him when he was down. Mannix the analyst (admittedly not a judge) scored it an 8-8 as it was a 10-8 with 2 points deducted.

Is this possible?

It was stopped end of round 7 do no cards shown, but 8-8 is plausible. How could anyone have 10 points from that round?

[dookus]

10 points must….

Is this true. Last night on the Berlanga undercard, Vargas v Rodriguez had a round 2 where Vargas knocked Rodriguez down in round 2, but the ref deducted 2 points from Vargas for hitting him when he was down. Mannix the analyst (admittedly not a judge) scored it an 8-8 as it was a 10-8 with 2 points deducted.

Is this possible?

It was stopped end of round 7 do no cards shown, but 8-8 is plausible. How could anyone have 10 points from that round?

Point deductions are the very last stage of scoring, they're only applied after the round is scored based on ten-point-must (including taking knockdowns into account). So 8-8 would be correct: he wins the round 10-8, then the two points are taken off.

[SeanBrennan]

10 points must….

Is this true. Last night on the Berlanga undercard, Vargas v Rodriguez had a round 2 where Vargas knocked Rodriguez down in round 2, but the ref deducted 2 points from Vargas for hitting him when he was down. Mannix the analyst (admittedly not a judge) scored it an 8-8 as it was a 10-8 with 2 points deducted.

Is this possible?

It was stopped end of round 7 do no cards shown, but 8-8 is plausible. How could anyone have 10 points from that round?

Point deductions are the very last stage of scoring, they're only applied after the round is scored based on ten-point-must (including taking knockdowns into account). So 8-8 would be correct: he wins the round 10-8, then the two points are taken off.

thanks Dookus and sorry for being a giant geek.

[olij999]

I see this topic has reared its head again on the Boxing News letters page this week. Let's see who answers and with what answer - and will the Referees' Guide get a mention? Answers on a postcard...

[Boxing Prospect]

10 points must….

Rightly or wrongly, there have been rounds scored without a 10.

Example here
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Tsuyo ... ie_Shields

...Then again that fight serves as a reminder of one of the strangest scorecards in history
Two rounds where one judge had it 10-8 and another had the same round 9-10, a round that was 9-9 on two cards.

[olij999]

10 points must….

Rightly or wrongly, there have been rounds scored without a 10.

Example here
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Tsuyo ... ie_Shields

...Then again that fight serves as a reminder of one of the strangest scorecards in history
Two rounds where one judge had it 10-8 and another had the same round 9-10, a round that was 9-9 on two cards.

That is intriguing - great find.

Round 4 could be OK - looks like a round where, before any point deduction for fouls, one judge had it 10-9 for A and the others had 9-10 for B. With one point deducted from B for fouls, which (unlike the point for a KD) comes after the 10-point must is applied, that becomes 10-8, 9-9, 9-9. That assumes there was a one-point deduction for a foul in round 4, though - do you know if that was the case in that fight?

Round 2 - the 10-9, 8-10, 9-10 one - looks really odd. Can't be a point deduction as none of the judges could then have ended up giving the fighter with the point deduction 10 points, but at least one judge has given A or B a 10. So that makes no sense. Ditto for round 11 where the same happens. Only way to make sense of that is if one judge has got the fighters the wrong way round, but that cannot be the case as other rounds such as round 9, where there looks to have been a KD or point deducted, are consistent for all three judges. Maybe the official collating the cards transposed the numbers for A and B?

So it's a bit mad.

[olij999]

Rightly or wrongly, there have been rounds scored without a 10.

Example here
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Tsuyo ... ie_Shields

...Then again that fight serves as a reminder of one of the strangest scorecards in history
Two rounds where one judge had it 10-8 and another had the same round 9-10, a round that was 9-9 on two cards.

That is intriguing - great find.

Round 4 could be OK - looks like a round where, before any point deduction for fouls, one judge had it 10-9 for A and the others had 9-10 for B. With one point deducted from B for fouls, which (unlike the point for a KD) comes after the 10-point must is applied, that becomes 10-8, 9-9, 9-9. That assumes there was a one-point deduction for a foul in round 4, though - do you know if that was the case in that fight?

Round 2 - the 10-9, 8-10, 9-10 one - looks really odd. Can't be a point deduction as none of the judges could then have ended up giving the fighter with the point deduction 10 points, but at least one judge has given A or B a 10. So that makes no sense. Ditto for round 11 where the same happens. Only way to make sense of that is if one judge has got the fighters the wrong way round, but that cannot be the case as other rounds such as round 9, where there looks to have been a KD or point deducted, are consistent for all three judges. Maybe the official collating the cards transposed the numbers for A and B?

So it's a bit mad.

And an update from good old print media. Ring Record Book 1986-7 print the scorecard and says that Hamada was deducted a point in round 4 and Shields was deducted a point in round 9, so was right on that. As for the other rounds, it looks as though Judge Jen-Kin was taking a different approach to other judges as, ignoring point deductions, he appears to have scored four 10-8 rounds in a fight where no other judge scored one .

[jamesmcdonnell]

Fighter A completely dominates from the opening bell in round one. He lands numerous punches on fighter B and doesn’t take a punch in return. Fighter B is hurt a few times and wobbled but doesn’t go down. Commentators say he should be pulled out if it continues to be so one sided.. In the last few seconds of the round fighter A lands a hard punch and goes for the finish as fighter B looks in big trouble. The ref is close to jumping in to stop it but fighter B throws a desperate haymaker that catches fighter A clean and drops him for a flash knockdown. Fighter A jumps straight back up looking embarrassed but is given a count as the bell goes ending the round.

How do you score the round? 10 points must system.

10-9 to fighter A - however, in reality, most judges will feel pressured to automatically score it 10-8 to fighter b.

The other argument would be 10-10, because fighter A should have had a 10-8 round for dominating, even without a knockdown (which is in the rules) but the knockdown for fighter B matches that.

Boxing scoring is stupid, and gives far too much credence to knockdowns.

[jamesmcdonnell]

10-8

Should be 10-8 for dominance, 10-7 for the KD and back to 10-8 for getting a KD back.
Also, best describes a dominant heavy KD round vs a flash KD.

No, you didn't read properly, fighter A doesn't score a knockdown.

[skanksta]

10-8

Should be 10-8 for dominance, 10-7 for the KD and back to 10-8 for getting a KD back.
Also, best describes a dominant heavy KD round vs a flash KD.

No, you didn't read properly, fighter A doesn't score a knockdown.

[skanksta]

10-10 then.

This is a 10-8 round for dominance and a 10-8 round t'other way for the KD - 10-8 draw in effect, so 10-10.

The fact that one score is for glorious boxing and the other "a bit lucky" doesn't matter, you get glorious scores and boring. fluke scores in every sport, but they all still count as scores.

[Giancarlo]

Fighter A completely dominates from the opening bell in round one. He lands numerous punches on fighter B and doesn’t take a punch in return. Fighter B is hurt a few times and wobbled but doesn’t go down. Commentators say he should be pulled out if it continues to be so one sided.. In the last few seconds of the round fighter A lands a hard punch and goes for the finish as fighter B looks in big trouble. The ref is close to jumping in to stop it but fighter B throws a desperate haymaker that catches fighter A clean and drops him for a flash knockdown. Fighter A jumps straight back up looking embarrassed but is given a count as the bell goes ending the round.

How do you score the round? 10 points must system.

Doesn't it depend on the governing body?

Absolutely!

If Fighter A or Fighter B is the home fighter, and the fight is in the UK, I am sure the BBBoC have advised their bent and/or incompetent officials it is MANDATORY to give rounds to the home fighter at each and every opportunity.

That caters for people like Marcus McDonnell who have no idea at all about what is happening in the ring.

[Coco]

Fighter A completely dominates from the opening bell in round one. He lands numerous punches on fighter B and doesn’t take a punch in return. Fighter B is hurt a few times and wobbled but doesn’t go down. Commentators say he should be pulled out if it continues to be so one sided.. In the last few seconds of the round fighter A lands a hard punch and goes for the finish as fighter B looks in big trouble. The ref is close to jumping in to stop it but fighter B throws a desperate haymaker that catches fighter A clean and drops him for a flash knockdown. Fighter A jumps straight back up looking embarrassed but is given a count as the bell goes ending the round.

How do you score the round? 10 points must system.

Doesn't it depend on the governing body?

Absolutely!

If Fighter A or Fighter B is the home fighter, and the fight is in the UK, I am sure the BBBoC have advised their bent and/or incompetent officials it is MANDATORY to give rounds to the home fighter at each and every opportunity.

That caters for people like Marcus McDonnell who have no idea at all about what is happening in the ring.

Embarrassing that he is A Star, always been one of the worst