BoxRec

the first knockdown was clearly a punch behind the head but....

are the judges instructed to score this 10-8 or can they score it 10-9 as it wasnt really a knockdown???

its basically cost hopkins the fight

my fecking boss came in just after the 5th round and i never got the fight back till the 9th

will watch it tommorrow but hopkins certainly finsihed stronger

In America they are terrified of going against the grain, so always score it 10-8, although they shouldn't. The knockdown should only count for 1 point anyway, so if the guy scoring the knockdown is losing the round convincingly, there would be a case for it being a 10-10 round. Never happens, though.

Judges have to score it according to what the ref rules. If a KD call was patently bougs, the judges still have to score it. You could make the case that was a 10-9 Pascal round because Hopkins was clearly winning up till then, but you can't take a page out of the Atlas book of scoring and ignore the KD.

gobbles wrote:In America they are terrified of going against the grain, so always score it 10-8, although they shouldn't. The knockdown should only count for 1 point anyway, so if the guy scoring the knockdown is losing the round convincingly, there would be a case for it being a 10-10 round. Never happens, though.

They are also terrified of even rounds, although it looks like one judge used them tonight, which is very rare in North America.

Pascal's proving to be a bit of a frontrunner. Still, wasn't a bad fight considering Bernie's involvement.

I had Pascal nicking it because I'll always score any remotely close round against Hopkins.

Glad I didn't place a bet, came very close to putting something on Hopkins but got cold feet.

Oh and as far as the OP goes, I always score a round with a knockdown as a 10-8 against the fella who went over. Knockdowns are spikes, they should be rewarded.

It's a flawed "sport"... To avoid controversy, i think it's always a 10-8, even if it's a Pile Driver to the back of someones head.

And yeah, I thought Hopkins edged it

Has Hopkins ever won a close fight on the cards? If I remember rightly wasn't he also down vs DLH at the time of the stoppage.

Not saying they were massive robberies - but thats 4 fights I've scored for Hopkins that have gone the other way.... Okay this isn't a defeat - but look at the reaction of both men.... its says it all.

Hopkins won this one and has been robbed of his chance of yet more history.

stujones wrote:Has Hopkins ever won a close fight on the cards? If I remember rightly wasn't he also down vs DLH at the time of the stoppage.

He was 2 points down on one of the cards but ahead by 6 and 4 points on the other two cards.

No he has never won a close fight on the cards, I had the first fight with Taylor a draw, second fight a Taylor victory, Calzaghe fight a draw and the Pascal fight a Hopkins win.

I'd forgotten one judge had De La Hoya in front after 8 against Hopkins. I looked back at my press pack from the fight and it was a judge named Keith Macdonald, who didn't seem to get much work after that. He scored 77-75 De La Hoya. Dave Moretti had it 79-73 Hopkins and Paul Smith had it 78-74 (my card from ringside was 79-74, couldn't see what Macdonald was watching at all). I think this was more a case of an incompetent piece of judging than 'Las Vegas' having it in for Hopkins.

I scored the first 10-10 I thought Hopkins was just winning up until that point.

I know it doesn't make much difference but isn't there a case to score the round 9-9? I had Hopkins winning the round, so 10-9 for him. Hopkins gets dropped so loses his winning round, 9-9 logically. Shouldn't the point be taken from the fighter who is dropped and not added to the scorecard of the fighter who scored the knockdown?

If Pascal had been winning the round and drops Hopkins. It's a 10-8 round no doubt, but the point here has been taken from the dropped fighter as it should be. Why should it be any different?

10-10 to me represents an even round whereby no fighter hits the canvas.



I'm confused.

Neri wrote:I know it doesn't make much difference but isn't there a case to score the round 9-9? I had Hopkins winning the round, so 10-9 for him. Hopkins gets dropped so loses his winning round, 9-9 logically. Shouldn't the point be taken from the fighter who is dropped and not added to the scorecard of the fighter who scored the knockdown?

If Pascal had been winning the round and drops Hopkins. It's a 10-8 round no doubt, but the point here has been taken from the dropped fighter as it should be. Why should it be any different?

10-10 to me represents an even round whereby no fighter hits the canvas.



I'm confused.

Ten point must mate: means you, well, must give at least one dude a score of ten. So in your scenario, what you'd put in the scorebox is actually 10-10. The score is a representation of each fighter's achievements rather than an actual tabulation, if you like. So the only way you're allowed to express an even round is 10-10, even if both dudes are dropped/have points taken away/fight like Audley.

I haven't seen the fight yet, but hypothetically I'd argue that there is a case for the scenario that I've bolded to be scored, logically, 10-9 for Pascal; Pascal drops Bernard =10-8, but Bernard comes back really well/was winning the round easily = Pascal 10-9 Hopkins. The knockdown kinda cancels the good work Hops did in that scenario, if you get me, but doesn't get "full knockdown credit" of a proper 10-8 round (i.e. giving the round to Pascal 10-9 means that the knockdown was worth more than "just" Hopkins winning the other two & a half minutes, like).

Only if Bernard beat the ever-living shit out of Pascal for two minutes fifty five seconds or had him wobbling all over the shop, then Pascal put Hopkins down, would I think it warranted upping the score to 10-10.

Would you not agree?

I can see that and I competely forgot about the ten point must system.

I've just watched the fight and plumped for the 10-8 rounds to Pascal just to see how it turned out (Although i'm much happier to give 10-9 cos Hop was winning the round). I ended up with a 115-112 card to Hopkins. I thought he was very good and befuddled Pascal in the majority of the rounds. I'm amazed by Hopkins, I really am.

Neri wrote:I can see that and I competely forgot about the ten point must system.

I've just watched the fight and plumped for the 10-8 rounds to Pascal just to see how it turned out (Although i'm much happier to give 10-9 cos Hop was winning the round). I ended up with a 115-112 card to Hopkins. I thought he was very good and befuddled Pascal in the majority of the rounds. I'm amazed by Hopkins, I really am.

He's unbelievable! The way he figures people out is astonishing, after about 5 rounds he completely shut Pascal down! His left hook to the body was terrific and I think helped Hopkins late, even though his staminia is dodgy at the best of times. Great fight and a superb B-Hop performance the guy is a real genuis

Can somebody point me towards a link to watch this fight please?
Not Hopkins greatest fan my any means. But there seems to be a real stink about this verdict .. Typical Hopkins fight I know.

boxerbob wrote:the first knockdown was clearly a punch behind the head but....

are the judges instructed to score this 10-8 or can they score it 10-9 as it wasnt really a knockdown???

You can score a round 10-9 even with a knockdown, but only if one fighter is dominating, and then they have a knockdown against them. They would have to be clearly dominating the round too.

The judges have to follow the referee's call, they cannot ignore the knockdown once it is called. The punch that caused it anyway, was on the side, not the back of the head, it was not a rabbit punch, and it was only because Hopkins had his head forward and low.

Datsue wrote:

Neri wrote:I know it doesn't make much difference but isn't there a case to score the round 9-9? I had Hopkins winning the round, so 10-9 for him. Hopkins gets dropped so loses his winning round, 9-9 logically. Shouldn't the point be taken from the fighter who is dropped and not added to the scorecard of the fighter who scored the knockdown?

If Pascal had been winning the round and drops Hopkins. It's a 10-8 round no doubt, but the point here has been taken from the dropped fighter as it should be. Why should it be any different?

10-10 to me represents an even round whereby no fighter hits the canvas.



I'm confused.

Ten point must mate: means you, well, must give at least one dude a score of ten. So in your scenario, what you'd put in the scorebox is actually 10-10. The score is a representation of each fighter's achievements rather than an actual tabulation, if you like. So the only way you're allowed to express an even round is 10-10, even if both dudes are dropped/have points taken away/fight like Audley.

I haven't seen the fight yet, but hypothetically I'd argue that there is a case for the scenario that I've bolded to be scored, logically, 10-9 for Pascal; Pascal drops Bernard =10-8, but Bernard comes back really well/was winning the round easily = Pascal 10-9 Hopkins. The knockdown kinda cancels the good work Hops did in that scenario, if you get me, but doesn't get "full knockdown credit" of a proper 10-8 round (i.e. giving the round to Pascal 10-9 means that the knockdown was worth more than "just" Hopkins winning the other two & a half minutes, like).

Only if Bernard beat the ever-living shit out of Pascal for two minutes fifty five seconds or had him wobbling all over the shop, then Pascal put Hopkins down, would I think it warranted upping the score to 10-10.

Would you not agree?

Totally correct. a 9-9 round can only be scored if there is a deduction.

stujones wrote:Has Hopkins ever won a close fight on the cards? If I remember rightly wasn't he also down vs DLH at the time of the stoppage.

Not saying they were massive robberies - but thats 4 fights I've scored for Hopkins that have gone the other way.... Okay this isn't a defeat - but look at the reaction of both men.... its says it all.

Hopkins won this one and has been robbed of his chance of yet more history.

I scored it for Bernard, but it was close. Without the two knockdowns he'd have won very easily. A rematch is called for, and Hopkins will win it easy.

I thought the knockdown was perfectly legit, if somewhat unfortunate for Hopkins in that it clearly didn't hurt him at all, but still counted against him on the scorecards. If you get clocked on the side of the head and it puts you off balance and over, well, that's sport!

Pascal seemed confused for the most part in there, not least by Hopkins' incredible sense of timing - he just couldn't set himself to land at the right times at all.

The knockdown was legit. Hopkins is just the world's biggest whinger.

I scored it a draw.

Early doors I thought Pascal was gonna do a number on him, I really did. He was hitting him with big shots, darting and frustrating Hopkins.

Then round 6 he literally just switched off like a light bulb.

There was no decline, it was instant. Almost like an injury or something occurred. Hopkins grew in confidence and the punishing heavy blows dried up from Pascal and he became boat without a paddle.

banjo wrote:

stujones wrote:Has Hopkins ever won a close fight on the cards? If I remember rightly wasn't he also down vs DLH at the time of the stoppage.

He was 2 points down on one of the cards but ahead by 6 and 4 points on the other two cards.

No he has never won a close fight on the cards, I had the first fight with Taylor a draw, second fight a Taylor victory, Calzaghe fight a draw and the Pascal fight a Hopkins win.

Thanks for that.... well I think him being 6 up against DLH at the time was a bit much. I had it level at the time of the stoppage - probably being kind to Oscar and certainly momentum had clearly swung Hopkins' way. Gave DLH the opening four rounds, Hopkins final four rounds and he was on top of the ninth.

is it me or does Hopkins always have a complaint? didn't see the fight but punches are landed behind the ear all the time and no-one thinks anything of it.

granted, his recent defeats (Taylor, Calzaghe) have been razor-thin decisions, but the judges will usually give it to the more aggressive guy.Which isn't usually Hopkins.

How can 114-112 in Hopkins' favour and two even scorecards be a draw? Surely Hopkins edged those cards no matter how slightly and therefore should've been awarded the win? Someone enlighten me please!