BoxRec

Just watching FNF whilst my wife thinks im working in the shed.
Heavyweights Miller V Kinch.
Would most of us score an extremely dominant round 10-9 simply because there was no Knock Down??
I would personally like to see more 10 8 rounds where there has been a big dominant round with no knock downs.

what do others think I wonder

Grant wrote:I would personnaly like to see more 9-8 rounds where there has been a severly dominant round with no knock downs.

Is this a typo? I don't mean the "personnaly" or the "severly." I mean was "9-8" a typo? Because that's not how any round is scored in the 10-point must system except due to point deduction from rules violation.

Yeah mate it is. Dopey me

I remember 10-8 rounds at Vitali K.-Briggs fight. One judge scored it 120-105, the other two 120-107 and there was no KD.

Definitely more 10-8 rounds. Imo 10-8 should be the standard for a clearly won round by a fighter when a KD didn't occur. Close rounds should be 10-9. KD's take away a point from the victim of said KD as per usual. I think this would help some close fights get "scored right" more often if that scoring strategy was used (& there was judge accountability).

I'd like to see more 10-8 rounds and more 10-10 rounds

Needless to say, the standard and "correct" way to score is that a round without a KD should only be scored 10-8 if it is an utter shellacking. I wish that this was not the system, because I think distinctions between margins of dominance should be more precise. Right now, winning a round by a single punch counts the same as winning a round by 50 punches. Also, I don't think it's logical that we fail to utilize all of the numbers down to 1, except for with the occurrence of KD's. As it stands right now, you could dominate your opponent 10-8, he finishes the round at first, but then dies later of internal injuries. If that's a 10-8, then what's a 10-7? Do you have to kill your opponent and keep punching him after he's dead to get a 10-6? Why do we have all of this room to score on down to a 10-1, but we don't use it? Granted, I don't endorse a single rogue judge using his own home-brewed scoring system out of nowhere, but I feel like maybe a summit should be held where all judges agree on a different way of using the system.

I score a no-knockdown, no point deduction round 10-8, IF:

the round is so one-sided I think maybe the fight could be stopped. My own criteria anyway.

I also think there should be more 10-10 rounds.

If a fighter is dominating the round but then suffers a flask knockdown, he almost always loses the round 10-8.

This doesn't seem right.

If the guy losing is being dominated BELL-TO-BELL, taking a bad beating, absorbing a lot of punches, getting visibly hurt but somehow stays on his feet it's a 10-8 round imo.
I don't mean a flurry that has him in trouble for a bit, I mean just getting beat up for a whole round.
If I'm wondering why the ref and corner is allowing this beatdown to continue maybe I'm watching a 10-8 round.

A couple of Vitali K. vs Sanders were justifiable 10-8 rounds without a knockdown.
Calzaghe/Lacy certainly had at least a few such rounds.
Hopkins/Joppy had some.
Julio Cesar Chavez jr/John Duddy
Mayweather/Gatti
.......on and on...

Over here in rounds like that the ref tends to step in.