How Do You Score This Round ?

[Tony1244]

Fighter A is completely shutting out Fighter B with 10 seconds to go in the round.

Fighter B lands one clean punch that knocks Fighter A down.


Most would score it 10-8, for Fighter B. We are "trained" to score a fight this way on account of the knockdown.

Just something I always wondered, because Fighter A loses credit for 2:50 of the round just like if it had been even or if he had been losing.

[ReggieDiggs]

Completely shutting out a guy for 2:50 before getting dropped @ the end of the round makes me feel like it could go a few ways. I think I would either go 10-9 for fighter A (sounds like A had a 10-8 round going before getting dropped) or 10-10 (Fighter A winning the round boxing wise, but losing damage wise kinda just cancels things out I think it could be argued).

[BAD INTENTIONS]

If I was rooting for fighter A, then the round is 10-9 for fighter A.
If I was rooting for fighter B, then the round is 10-8 for fighter B.

That's basically how people judge boxing matches.

[JCS]

How 'bad' is the knockdown?

Was Fighter B ever seriously hurt?

[Tony1244]

If I was rooting for fighter A, then the round is 10-9 for fighter A.
If I was rooting for fighter B, then the round is 10-8 for fighter B.

That's basically how people judge boxing matches.

Funny AND True. Goes for all walks of life.

[dominik]

I would rank it 10:10.

without the KD it would be 10:9 and the KD means 1 point deduction so it would be 10:10 (or 9:9?:))

in reality a KD round is almost always scored 10:8 though no matter who wins that round before the KD unless it is really a beatdown.

[handsofstone]

Unless fighter A is punching fvck out of fighter B for 2:50 of the round then its still a 10-8 round for B coz pugilism alone isnt enough to win a round

[crusader]

Defaulting to 10:8 for knockdowns is nonsensical. It basically says that any success the dropped boxer had during the round was worthless, even if it was 2:50 of dominance. Why should a typical knockdown be weighted so heavily compared to 2:50 of knockdown free dominance?

A lot will score this round 10:8 for the person who scores the knockdown, though 10:9 for the same person is also fairly common. It seems fairly rare for the dropped boxer in this type of case to ever draw or win the round.

It makes the most sense to me that boxer A would've won the round 10:9 without the knockdown, so the round becomes even with the knockdown. This is assuming that the dropped boxer isn't terribly hurt, as in that case I think you can argue that the effectiveness of fighter B's brief success overrules the 2:50 of him losing, at least if he wasn't getting battered.

[JCS]

If Fighter A is down hard.. and is badly hurt. a knockdown of the "this might be stopped now or soon" variety... It probably does swing to a 10-8 for Fighter B.

If in addition to the above, Fighter B is hurt badly in the round... as in, it was going to be a 10-8 for Fighter A... it gets tricky. It probably becomes a 10-9 for Fighter A.

If it was just a dominant point-win type of round for Fighter A and it is a flash knockdown, it really should be a 10-10... because a 10-9 for Fighter A goes to 9-9, and turns into 10-10 as its a 10-pt must.

[sucracristo]

10-8 is for fighter A winning the round AND knocking down B.
if it was a win with 2 KD's, i would go 10-7.
if it was an inordinately dominating round for A and KD of B, i might go 10-7 also.
i score the round first, then adjust for the KD's and points from ref.
the OP is describing a 10-9 or even maybe 10-8 round leading up to end of round KD.
you have to deduct 2 for the KD, which means A is down to 8 and B has either 8 or 9 depending how bad he was losing.
because it's 10 point MUST, you have to adjust the scores to 10-9 or 10-10 awarded to B.
i admit that if a round was close with a KD, i pretty much always score it 10-8 no matter
who i though was edging the round. i would only buck the trend if A was dominating
before getting dropped.

[tiny_acres]

I just can't answer honestly with so many variables.I would just like to think I would be fair in my evaluation.

[crusader]

10-8 is for fighter A winning the round AND knocking down B.
if it was a win with 2 KD's, i would go 10-7.
if it was an inordinately dominating round for A and KD of B, i might go 10-7 also.
i score the round first, then adjust for the KD's and points from ref.
the OP is describing a 10-9 or even maybe 10-8 round leading up to end of round KD.
you have to deduct 2 for the KD, which means A is down to 8 and B has either 8 or 9 depending how bad he was losing.
because it's 10 point MUST, you have to adjust the scores to 10-9 or 10-10 for figher B.
i admit that if a round was close with a KD, i pretty much always score it 10-8 no matter
who i though was edging the round. i would only buck the trend if A was dominating
before getting dropped.

You have to deduct two points for a knockdown? It that true?

I'd expect a lot more 10-7 rounds then.

[sucracristo]

You have to deduct two points for a knockdown? It that true?
I'd expect a lot more 10-7 rounds then.

a 2nd point if you're winning. you just aren't going to win the round if
you are the only one who got dropped. at best the round is a draw.

[Lennox]

It's 10-9 to fighter B. If fighter A was convincingly winning the round until that point. Based on a 10 point must, Fighter B won the round because of the knockdown but was losing the round until the point of the knockdown.

[world ranked]

10-9 to one who scored the knockdown.

[Perseus]

The way I score: If only one knockdown happens in the round the fighter who scored the knockdown automatically wins the round.
No exceptions.

Whether he wins the round 10-8 or 10-9 depends on how the round was going and how severe of knockdown it was.
If fighter A was badly hurt and fortunate that it happened very late in the round it's 10-8 no matter what happened in the previous 2:50

If it was just a flash knockdown after having been dominated for most of the round then 10-9 to fighter B

[JCS]

10-9 for Fighter B makes no sense. I know judges do that, but it doesn't work out. It suggests the round would be 10-10 without the KD.

[Perseus]

10-9 for Fighter B makes no sense. I know judges do that, but it doesn't work out. It suggests the round would be 10-10 without the KD.

No it does not. It suggests that he wouldn't win the round without the knockdown and nothing else.
A knockdown as the difference between who wins or loses a round of boxing?
Who would ever think staying off the canvas in boxing could be the difference between winning and losing?

The fighter that got dropped loses the round every time.

Here's how I justify scoring that way:
Effective punching: it's about who was most effective not whether or not they were both effective, the boxer whose punches put the other guy on the canvas always had the more effective punching even he was out landed 10-1

Effective aggression: pretty much the same, fighter A has no claim at more effective aggression when the opponents aggression put him down. If the aggression of fighter A was so effective there would not be punches coming back that can put him down.

Effective defense: this one is pretty obvious, defense that allows the other guy to score a knockdown clearly was not effective

Ring generalship: always a bit of a gray area but it's safe to say getting dropped was not part of the game plan for fighter A

[crusader]

I disagree with much of that. I take each criterion to assessed on everything that occurred in the round, meaning that dropping someone is just one part of a wider set of considerations. The fighter who scored the knockdown may have had the most effective instance of aggression, but that doesn't mean that on balance they were superior in terms of effective aggression. To analogize, should we chose teams of boxers and use overall BoxRec points to decide which is best, it wouldn't necessarily be the team of the boxer with the most points.

Do you think a fighter who lands a good punch, unarguably the best punch of a round, should win that round even if it's the only punch they land; it doesn't drop, seriously hurt, or cut their opponent; and the opponent lands 20 power shots and 30 jabs in the same round? The fighter who landed 1 punch would still have the most effective instance of punching and aggression, defense that allows someone to land that good of a punch was not effective, and I'm sure being hit with such a good punch was not part of the opponent's plan.

[craigjenkins05]

If always wondered why it wasn't 9-9 surely before the knockdown it's 10-9 to fighter A then knockdown fighter A loses a point for a knockdown but wins the round should be 9-9

[SFW]

If always wondered why it wasn't 9-9 surely before the knockdown it's 10-9 to fighter A then knockdown fighter A loses a point for a knockdown but wins the round should be 9-9

A 10-point must system makes things confusing, I was thinking the same way you are..


Your from Wales? I am a die-hard Calzaghe fan, the legend

[dookus]

10-10 if fighter A was winning before the knockdown and continued to win afterwards. It makes no sense to disproportionately reward one punch, especially where the knockdown is a flash knockdown or an off-balance knockdown.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

10-9 for fighter B.

A good example, though the ref botched it, was that round MAB dropped Marquez late. I think it was round seven, JMM was whipping his ass that round and got caught late.

[craigjenkins05]

If always wondered why it wasn't 9-9 surely before the knockdown it's 10-9 to fighter A then knockdown fighter A loses a point for a knockdown but wins the round should be 9-9

A 10-point must system makes things confusing, I was thinking the same way you are..


Your from Wales? I am a die-hard Calzaghe fan, the legend

Ye from Swansea not too far from calzaghes about an hour and a bit

10-10 if fighter A was winning before the knockdown and continued to win afterwards. It makes no sense to disproportionately reward one punch, especially where the knockdown is a flash knockdown or an off-balance knockdown.

And to say that shouldn't be penalised for one punch if. You get knocked down you get deducted a point 9-9 makes more sense to me

[Perseus]

I disagree with much of that. I take each criterion to assessed on everything that occurred in the round, meaning that dropping someone is just one part of a wider set of considerations. The fighter who scored the knockdown may have had the most effective instance of aggression, but that doesn't mean that on balance they were superior in terms of effective aggression. To analogize, should we chose teams of boxers and use overall BoxRec points to decide which is best, it wouldn't necessarily be the team of the boxer with the most points.

Do you think a fighter who lands a good punch, unarguably the best punch of a round, should win that round even if it's the only punch they land; it doesn't drop, seriously hurt, or cut their opponent; and the opponent lands 20 power shots and 30 jabs in the same round? The fighter who landed 1 punch would still have the most effective instance of punching and aggression, defense that allows someone to land that good of a punch was not effective, and I'm sure being hit with such a good punch was not part of the opponent's plan.

The conversation is about a round where a guy who was clearly losing the round scored a knockdown at the end.
I posted how I score THAT scenario and why.
A knockdown is indeed only one part of the round but it is an important enough event in that round to trump everything the other guy did.
You're talking about a different situation, the scoring rules are still the same but who does or does not win the round differs based on what actually happens.