BoxRec

If boxer 'A' was leading (in your opinion) 10/9 in a round and was floored, but recovered with accurate/scoring punches in final minute/seconds of the round

If it is Wbf or Ibo then the Aussie wins 10-7 lol Only stirring.

I will let everyone else decide before posting

10-9 B.

10-9 b

yeah im pretty sure if you get dropped in a round, you lose that round not unless you drop him too then i think it would be a 10-10 round..

i assume u r referring to round 3 of mundine kim.

in my opinion mundine didnt do enough in that round to make it anything else other than a 10-8 kim.

if however mundine battered shit out of kim for the other 2:50 seconds (to the point where the ref is very close to stopping it) then i would call it a 10-9......its similar to calling a 10-8 round where theres been no knockdown in my opinion. something like bowe-golota 2 round 2 wasnt even a 10-8 round for golota and that was 2 and a half minutes of pure ownage.

i think once you have been put on your ass you have lost the round aswell as the point for the knockdown

Knockdown = -1 points.
Therefore, if he was leading 10/9 it would make it 9/9 = 10/10 at that point.

AntonS wrote:Knockdown = -1 points.
Therefore, if he was leading 10/9 it would make it 9/9 = 10/10 at that point.

That's not how it works though. The first knockdown takes precedence and is essentially worth 2 points. Again though, in the end, that knockdown will not be worth 2 points. It merely jumps the boxer ahead 2 points as though he won the round as well because the knockdown takes precedence over everything else.

Let's say that boxer B won the round and scored the knockdown. We would score that 10-8 boxer B, right? That one's a no-brainer. So how do we go from what could have been a 10-8 for boxer B to 10-10 just because a boxer A won the round? Unless he won the round by an absolutely devastating margin (an equivalent to 10-8 with no knockdown), we would only give him one point for winning the round. One point puts him back at 10-9 (rather than 10-8) and not 10-10. He still got knocked down and knockdowns, big or small, are essentially worth more than just "winning a round."

We're getting mixed up by the chronological order of events I think. The knockdown will be the first thing to be considered when tallying up your final score.

I agree to a certain extent, but I think you are putting to much emphasis on the KD. If a boxer wins the round but is off balance and goes down by a glancing blow, does he still deserve to lose the round. I think he at least gets to draw the round having won 2minutes 59secs of the round.

fox wrote:I agree to a certain extent, but I think you are putting to much emphasis on the KD. If a boxer wins the round but is off balance and goes down by a glancing blow, does he still deserve to lose the round. I think he at least gets to draw the round having won 2minutes 59secs of the round.

This is how it's taught by the ABC. I don't imagine the 10-point must system is any different in Australia but I could be wrong. You're referring to a flash knockdown and I'll admit, you're arguments are justified and warrant debate. Balance is crucial in this sport. If a gymnast, for example, were to lose balance on a performance and fall to the mat, they would be docked points for it (or however they score). Falling to the mat in gymnastics, much like boxing, significantly hurts a good performance. You can get back up and put on a dazzling performance, but you were still knocked down. Boxing in that aspect can be compared to gymnastics.

Aside from the fact that that is how it is taught by those who implement it officially... do I agree with you? Yeah, I do. Much like I don't think a decisive round should be scored the same as a close round (10-9), I don't think a flash knockdown should be worth as much as a clear, crisp knockdown. Unfortunately, it's not my system to tinker with. You don't drive on the left side of the street because you think it's more efficient. You drive on what they let you drive on. The 10-point must system has flaws and this may very well be one of them. But the encouraged score for the first scenario would have boxer B winning because he scored the knockdown.

Fair enough mate good point. But does he lose the round 10-8 or 10-9 if he out scores the other bloke for the rest of the round? You said the system has flaws but no where near as bad as the computer scoring in the amateurs.

fox wrote:Fair enough mate good point. But does he lose the round 10-8 or 10-9 if he out scores the other bloke for the rest of the round? You said the system has flaws but no where near as bad as the computer scoring in the amateurs.

If he loses the round and gets knocked down once, that's 10-8 (of course).

If he wins the round by a close or comfortable margin but gets knocked down once that would be 10-9.

If he wins the round by a huge margin, I believe you could score it 10-10. I've never heard it "taught" officially but I could see the argument for it easily.

Either way, because he got knocked down, he essentially cannot "win" the round. The best he could hope for is a 10-10 which would require a lot of work to erase the knockdown.

npal wrote:

fox wrote:Fair enough mate good point. But does he lose the round 10-8 or 10-9 if he out scores the other bloke for the rest of the round? You said the system has flaws but no where near as bad as the computer scoring in the amateurs.

If he loses the round and gets knocked down once, that's 10-8 (of course).

If he wins the round by a close or comfortable margin but gets knocked down once that would be 10-9.

If he wins the round by a huge margin, I believe you could score it 10-10. I've never heard it "taught" officially but I could see the argument for it easily.

Either way, because he got knocked down, he essentially cannot "win" the round. The best he could hope for is a 10-10 which would require a lot of work to erase the knockdown.

i went 10-9B. But i think npals summation above provides a very good explantion.

npal wrote:

fox wrote:Fair enough mate good point. But does he lose the round 10-8 or 10-9 if he out scores the other bloke for the rest of the round? You said the system has flaws but no where near as bad as the computer scoring in the amateurs.

If he loses the round and gets knocked down once, that's 10-8 (of course).

If he wins the round by a close or comfortable margin but gets knocked down once that would be 10-9.

If he wins the round by a huge margin, I believe you could score it 10-10. I've never heard it "taught" officially but I could see the argument for it easily.

Either way, because he got knocked down, he essentially cannot "win" the round. The best he could hope for is a 10-10 which would require a lot of work to erase the knockdown.

I have been told to score it 10-10 if fighter A is absolutly winning the round but gets a flash Knockdown.

ben k wrote:

npal wrote:

fox wrote:Fair enough mate good point. But does he lose the round 10-8 or 10-9 if he out scores the other bloke for the rest of the round? You said the system has flaws but no where near as bad as the computer scoring in the amateurs.

If he loses the round and gets knocked down once, that's 10-8 (of course).

If he wins the round by a close or comfortable margin but gets knocked down once that would be 10-9.

If he wins the round by a huge margin, I believe you could score it 10-10. I've never heard it "taught" officially but I could see the argument for it easily.

Either way, because he got knocked down, he essentially cannot "win" the round. The best he could hope for is a 10-10 which would require a lot of work to erase the knockdown.

I have been told to score it 10-10 if fighter A is absolutly winning the round but gets a flash Knockdown.

You can. See my 3rd scenario above. I did find documentation supporting that actually. But it depends on the degree of "absolutely." In most cases, the safest option would be 10-9.

Here's what the ABC training document has to say on this: "In most cases two (2) points may be awarded for the first knockdown in a round, for either fighter, one (1) point thereafter for each additional knockdown. However, in rare cases, good discretion must be used and a judge may award only one (1) point in cases where the boxer who suffered the knockdown clearly dominated the round."

More tips on that at http://www.abcboxing.com > ABC documents > Ring Officials Certification Program.

Yes, I know the ABC has no jurisdiction in Oz.

I would score 10/9 for A

AntonS wrote:I would score 10/9 for A

So you're not going to count the knockdown?

npal wrote:

AntonS wrote:Knockdown = -1 points.
Therefore, if he was leading 10/9 it would make it 9/9 = 10/10 at that point.

That's not how it works though. The first knockdown takes precedence and is essentially worth 2 points. Again though, in the end, that knockdown will not be worth 2 points. It merely jumps the boxer ahead 2 points as though he won the round as well because the knockdown takes precedence over everything else.

Let's say that boxer B won the round and scored the knockdown. We would score that 10-8 boxer B, right? That one's a no-brainer. So how do we go from what could have been a 10-8 for boxer B to 10-10 just because a boxer A won the round? Unless he won the round by an absolutely devastating margin (an equivalent to 10-8 with no knockdown), we would only give him one point for winning the round. One point puts him back at 10-9 (rather than 10-8) and not 10-10. He still got knocked down and knockdowns, big or small, are essentially worth more than just "winning a round."

We're getting mixed up by the chronological order of events I think. The knockdown will be the first thing to be considered when tallying up your final score.

What are you some kind of boxing judge or something?