BoxRec

Does anybody else agree that rounds should not be awarded 10-9 unless there is a clear and dominant winner of the round? I just don't think it's right when a fight can be close as hell but could be scored 6-0 in rounds after the 6th, even though the guy leading may have landed only one or two more punches in each round.

For example, in the Hopkins-Taylor fight, if Taylor was given some of the earlier rounds 10-9, why shouldn't Hopkins be given some of the later rounds 10-8 considering he won them far more convincingly?

I feel that there should be more 10-10 rounds in boxing (or else 10-9 for a narrow win and 10-8 for a clear win) in order to keep scoring more consistent between judges. The line between a 10-9 round and a 9-10 round is too narrow for my liking and has too big an impact on the outcome of the fight.

I often score close rounds 10-10, as it makes it fairer when somone wins a round big, however I know for a fact after talking to some vegas judges, that 10-10 rounds are actively discouraged by the commissions.

Judges can also award 10-8 rounds even if there is no knockdown, but again it is very much frowned upon and judges who do so too often will not get used very often.

It seems as though some judges out there just have to score rounds 10-9, even if the two fighters are impossible to split. I think it's one reason why we see so many baffling scorecards. I agree with the first post and that judges should not award a round unless one fighter has done considerably more work and landed many more shots that the other.
Judges should also explain themselves when they hand over a dodgy card and be banned if they keep doing it.

Won't happen though

It just doesn't seem right that Taylor would get the same credit (10-9) for winning two of the early rounds by the finest of margins as Hops would for shaking him up badly in the 10th and 11th. In tactical fights like this one, the round scoring should differentiate between the very close rounds and rounds where one fighter is beating up on the other. Ideally I'd have rathered some of the early rounds were 10-10 rounds as neither fighter done enough to be pulling away on the scorecards at that stage.

Ding_Ding wrote:It seems as though some judges out there just have to score rounds 10-9, even if the two fighters are impossible to split. I think it's one reason why we see so many baffling scorecards. I agree with the first post and that judges should not award a round unless one fighter has done considerably more work and landed many more shots that the other.
Judges should also explain themselves when they hand over a dodgy card and be banned if they keep doing it.

Won't happen though

It's the commissions who select the judges for fights who discourage them for awarding even rounds, they are told to award the round to a fighter and not to give even rounds, so you cannot blame them for doing so.

If a judge starts turning in 10-10 rounds regularly, he will be warned, and will then find he doesn't get the big fights and thus the big paydays.

So if you want to lay the blame at anyone's feet, lay it at the Nevada State Athletic commission.

johnswan1 wrote:It just doesn't seem right that Taylor would get the same credit (10-9) for winning two of the early rounds by the finest of margins as Hops would for shaking him up badly in the 10th and 11th. In tactical fights like this one, the round scoring should differentiate between the very close rounds and rounds where one fighter is beating up on the other. Ideally I'd have rathered some of the early rounds were 10-10 rounds as neither fighter done enough to be pulling away on the scorecards at that stage.

But Hopkins knows better than you and I how rounds are scored. Roy Jones may have been right when he told Jim and Larry that Hopkin's strategy was to figure him out early and take him out late, but the plan did not work. And that's Hopkins big miscalculation. Plan A should have been to try and win rounds and Plan B could have been take him out.

Taylor weathered it and was fighting back - even if he looked a different - even beaten - fighter after the 9th.

I still call this tactical mismanagement by Hopkins.

On the other hand, what kind of fight would it have been if Taylor had actually listened to his corner? They had lots of great, fundamental instructions for JT, but he didn't execute. Hopkins could have capitalized earlier. What was he waiting for? Could it be he felt he could't turn the advantage until he saw JT tiring in the 9th, as we all did?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Ding_Ding wrote:It seems as though some judges out there just have to score rounds 10-9, even if the two fighters are impossible to split. I think it's one reason why we see so many baffling scorecards. I agree with the first post and that judges should not award a round unless one fighter has done considerably more work and landed many more shots that the other.
Judges should also explain themselves when they hand over a dodgy card and be banned if they keep doing it.

Won't happen though

It's the commissions who select the judges for fights who discourage them for awarding even rounds, they are told to award the round to a fighter and not to give even rounds, so you cannot blame them for doing so.

If a judge starts turning in 10-10 rounds regularly, he will be warned, and will then find he doesn't get the big fights and thus the big paydays.

So if you want to lay the blame at anyone's feet, lay it at the Nevada State Athletic commission.

True

I think Taylor's jab played a big factor in preventing Hopkins getting inside where he was always going to be more effective. As Taylor began to tire I think it became easier for Hopkins to shoot the counter over and then burrow in.

Yep, the jab was good. But imagine if JT had lsitened to his corner and, rather than barelling in after a long jab, had shortened the following jab and fired the right. He may have actually caught Hopkins with that power punch instead of throwing wild, arcing rights at an opponent who bent and/or moved and circled away from the second or third jab thrown, making the right hand a wasteful, tiring punch.

That short jab may have lured Hopkins in where he may have taken a few good pops and thought better of doing it late in the fight when, as you say, Hop's inside game was effective.

Should woulda coulda both ways.

Let’s consider the example of Hopkins v Taylor and imagine there was no scoring at all and judges just cast a vote to say who won the fight.
I would think ‘This was a very even bout with Taylor making the running and shading it over the first two thirds but Hopkins has really finished strongly and proven himself the better man on the night. Verdict Hopkins.’

However under the 10 point system you get the accumulation of points rather than just a visual impression of who’s winning. Then you sometimes get these apparent injustices where a fighter banks early close rounds then finds himself hanging on at the end only to be crowned the winner despite taking a beating in the last minutes of action.

The main point is both fighters know the way the 10 point system operates so there is no excuse for coasting through rounds then complaining about the judges. As for giving close rounds 10-10, judges are encouraged to find the winner of a round if possible. At the time of scoring the judge doesn’t know whether or not there are going to be rounds with more action to come later. He can only base his opinion on what he sees in that 3 minutes of action. If it is very close he will generally favour the fighter who is coming forward, and again both fighters know this.

My own take on scoring, is that if you are struggling to pick a winner, there shouldn't be one and the round should be even. there used to be a hell of a lot more even rounds scored than there are today.

Agreed. I think judges should be assessed and ranked by a panel on a regular basis. Rounds of fights where they differed their scoring from other judges (i.e. 10-9 to fight A while another judge gave it 10-9 to fighter B) should be reviewed and if the general consensus is that of poor judgment, then the judge involved should be demoted / given a lower ranking. The highest ranked judges should then be given the major fights involving world titles. I feel this would be the best way to ensure the highest level of judging possible is achieved and maintained. If >50% of the panel agree with each round scored by the judge, then the judge made the correct decision. Judges can then have their rankings reduced in cases where for example <30% of the panel agree with their scoring.

I think judges should be assessed and ranked by a panel on a regular basis. Rounds of fights where they differed their scoring from other judges (i.e. 10-9 to fight A while another judge gave it 10-9 to fighter B) should be reviewed and if the general consensus is that of poor judgment, then the judge involved should be demoted / given a lower ranking. The highest ranked judges should then be given the major fights involving world titles

That is a very good idea. great post

how about...

10-10 draw
10-9 if one edges it
10-8 ass kicking without knockdown
10-7 knockdown
10-6 several knockdowns

johnswan1 wrote:Agreed. I think judges should be assessed and ranked by a panel on a regular basis. Rounds of fights where they differed their scoring from other judges (i.e. 10-9 to fight A while another judge gave it 10-9 to fighter B) should be reviewed and if the general consensus is that of poor judgment, then the judge involved should be demoted / given a lower ranking. The highest ranked judges should then be given the major fights involving world titles. I feel this would be the best way to ensure the highest level of judging possible is achieved and maintained. If >50% of the panel agree with each round scored by the judge, then the judge made the correct decision. Judges can then have their rankings reduced in cases where for example <30% of the panel agree with their scoring.

This already happens...

But obviously not effectively enough?! And aren't there different regulatory bodies depending on the states etc?

Actually it's one of the problems. It encourages uniformity in judging, judges generally don't want to stand out, hence they don't give 10-10 rounds, or 10-8 rounds without a knockdown.

no way to bitch about scoring, Taylor won at least 115-113...Hopkins won almost none of thee 8 first rounds...he sure did win the last 4 rounds but that wasnt enough, Taylor was more the agressor, landed more jabs over the most part of the fight Taylor won...no robbery there

A lot of Taylor's work was pretty poor early though, he missed and cuffed with a lot of shots, especially after the 5th, whilst Hopkins landed the cleaner blows and used better ring generalship.

The judges though scored Taylor winning rounds for his aggression, but what did Hopkins expect?

no, no, no ! Taylor sure connected at low percentage, but he still outlanded Hopkins...Taylor did outland Hopkins on punchstats for the 8 first rounds...therefore Taylor diserved to win those rounds...