BoxRec

in Szpilka-Wach fight one of the scorecards judges score this bout 97-93 Szpilka. He scored the round 10 10-9 Wach. it means that he didn't include/haven't seen the knockdown in this round, that was badly lost by Szpilka (i would rather score it 10-7 than 10-9).

So can scorecard judges in boxing completely ignore the knockdowns and score like they want to without any consequences and such a score is official without correcting it?

As far as I got it, knockdown means 10-8, but it can be narrowed to 10-9 in the case of knocked down guy scoring visibly more in quality and quantity, despite not knocking the other guy down. But ignoring KD probably breaks rules, even if KDs aren't legit and counted mistakenly by refs.

dagilechia wrote: ↑15 Nov 2018, 14:49 in Szpilka-Wach fight one of the scorecards judges score this bout 97-93 Szpilka. He scored the round 10 10-9 Wach. it means that he didn't include/haven't seen the knockdown in this round, that was badly lost by Szpilka (i would rather score it 10-7 than 10-9).

So can scorecard judges in boxing completely ignore the knockdowns and score like they want to without any consequences and such a score is official without correcting it?

How a judge could miss a knockdown is beyond me. No judge should ignore one. I've seen 9/9 rounds and 9/8 rounds when a knockdown occurred but the fighter knocked down would have won the round if not for the KD.

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Nov 2018, 15:19

dagilechia wrote: ↑15 Nov 2018, 14:49 in Szpilka-Wach fight one of the scorecards judges score this bout 97-93 Szpilka. He scored the round 10 10-9 Wach. it means that he didn't include/haven't seen the knockdown in this round, that was badly lost by Szpilka (i would rather score it 10-7 than 10-9).

So can scorecard judges in boxing completely ignore the knockdowns and score like they want to without any consequences and such a score is official without correcting it?

How a judge could miss a knockdown is beyond me. No judge should ignore one. I've seen 9/9 rounds and 9/8 rounds when a knockdown occurred but the fighter knocked down would have won the round if not for the KD.

There's no such thing as a 9/9 or 9/8. It's called "10 point must system" for a reason. A 9/9 would only be possible if the winner of the round has a point deducted by the ref - but the deduction comes AFTER the award of the 10.

RKY wrote: ↑15 Nov 2018, 20:33

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Nov 2018, 15:19

dagilechia wrote: ↑15 Nov 2018, 14:49 in Szpilka-Wach fight one of the scorecards judges score this bout 97-93 Szpilka. He scored the round 10 10-9 Wach. it means that he didn't include/haven't seen the knockdown in this round, that was badly lost by Szpilka (i would rather score it 10-7 than 10-9).

So can scorecard judges in boxing completely ignore the knockdowns and score like they want to without any consequences and such a score is official without correcting it?

How a judge could miss a knockdown is beyond me. No judge should ignore one. I've seen 9/9 rounds and 9/8 rounds when a knockdown occurred but the fighter knocked down would have won the round if not for the KD.

There's no such thing as a 9/9 or 9/8. It's called "10 point must system" for a reason. A 9/9 would only be possible if the winner of the round has a point deducted by the ref - but the deduction comes AFTER the award of the 10.

I could be mistaken, but I was certain I've seen it. Perhaps you are right and there was point deduction(s).

ya sometimes rounds are more appropriate as 10-9 even with a knockdown, but the last round in wach-szpilka was as legit 10-8 as you might see, szpilka did incredibly well to survive to the bell

sometimes there is bizarre scoring that i think is just error though, like that one judge having lee haskins beating ryan burnett by the exact lopsided score that burnett deserved (he mixed them up) and also i remember a judge in pascal-dawson giving the last round (very clear dawson) to pascal and he admitted after he accidently put his score for that round in the reversed boxes. he already had pascal well ahead and the fight was obviously over, so there was no need for him to score that round for pascal

but notice how disporportionately questionable scoring tends to favour the house a-side boxer, imo it makes it hard for it to merely be incompetence and honest mistakes

To me one of the stupidest things that's routinely said about scoring is that judges shouldn't go too lopsided scoring rounds with several knockdowns because it's unfair to put a guy too far behind with one round. It's like saying a grand slam should only be 3 runs because 4 on one hit isn't fair. If you don't want to fall way behind in a fight then don't get knocked down a bunch of times.