Scoring rounds even! 10-10? What's the problem? More rounds should be 10-10. Fact.

[Fenster]

I see fans moaning about this all the time, especially having a pop at pundits/comms/officials. For instance, it's noticeable that Froch does it a lot for Sky (he had four 10-10 rounds for Framp/Cruz II). I'm pretty sure I can remember big Glen do it regular when sat beside the brilliant Ian Darke.

I don't understand what's so wrong about this? Most non-obvious rounds - that don't produce a clear decisive winner - are open to interpretation, therefore lots of secondary factors influence our choice - which fighter you like the most, have money on, predicted would win, the style you prefer (slick, bulldozer), crowd influence, whether or not you like the camp/promoter, who's currently winning/losing, who has the sexiest bum, etc.

For example - how many times do we score rounds for the guy getting whopped, clearly behind on the cards, that then has a modicum of success? It's par for the course/common for pundits/comms to give a sympathy round (if you claim you don't/haven't you're lying), we subconsciously start favouring the poor sod getting walloped.

If you're undecided/clueless about the winner of a particular round then 10-10 is the fairest, most logical score. Whenever sound judges/fans say "it could have gone either way" then it should automatically be an even round. So scoring a round level gives a clearer indication of the overall fight than picking a winner for the sake of it.

Thoughts?

[TitoFan]

I agree, and it would cure some of what is wrong with judging.


Some fights are damned close, round by round. Judges, thinking that they have to pick a winner, sometimes force themselves.... and get it wrong. Rounds that should've been seen as a tie, go to one or the other. In the end, you could have one guy winning by 10-11 points, when in actuality the fight should be tied. Hell.... even with all 10-9 rounds, some fights end in a tie... six rounds for A and six rounds for B. Say for instance the fight has been a virtual standoff, only to have Fighter A begin to slightly dominate around Round 10 or so. Chances are, if a judge has seen Rounds 1-9 as a tie, he'll score 10-12 for Fighter A and he'll get his proper victory. If he's felt forced to give 10-9 rounds and has mistakenly given Fighter B 6 of those, he might end up with the wrong score for the fight.

Kind of convoluted (the above)... but hopefully I got my idea across.

[powerpuncher]

I agree too. Actually for a while, I started scoring a lot more rounds even because I thought it was more fair. I have slowly gone back to not scoring even rounds very often. It's just a tradition in boxing now to pick a winner of every round.

I personally have no problem with 6 rounds being scored even if they were close.

[Primo Carnera]

When I'm watching a fight, I always try to score rounds to one boxer and not give 10-10's. Admittedly that isn't always possible. I just think :
a. Surely one boxer was better than the other no matter by how little. And
b. The more 10-10 rounds, the more chance of a draw. The more draws, the more re-matches. The more re-matches the less chance of new blood breaking through, eventually leading to stagnation and standards dropping.
It gets to the stage where the more rounds that are scored 10-10 , the more a judge will feel that neither fighters deserved to lose and you'll get artificial draws.
I'll admit it's not ideal, because with the current scoring system, boxer A could shade 4 debatable rounds , another 6 could be scored even and boxer B could dominate 2 rounds doing everything but knock the guy down, and he would be the loser.
I also believe the scoring system is why most people perceive Kovalev as the winner against Ward, while in reality, Kovalev may well have been the aggressor , but you still have to land to win rounds. And Ward pinched rounds. It's about what you prefer, but skill always beats aggression.

[Master]

Anyone who scores a level round should be shot.

Decide one way and make a decision.

A level round should only be done in exceptional circumstances and when both fighters do not deserve to win the round.

[Spicoli]

I think it's easy to fall into a lull of just shrugging your shoulders during some fights and using 10-10 as a fall back. Quite possibly because the fights is a snoozer or in best case scenario because you have two guys trading in a phone booth all round. To me, in both instances it's easy to do. I just think there is always something to distinguish two fighters and action in a round. I mean literally every fight in history has had at least two punches thrown over 3 minutes. a 10-10 to me feels like "Meh, why bother". Indecisive and distracted. Given too many even rounds what business do I have harping on any 'close' decision when the fights over. I could not tell the difference and it makes 'could have gone either way' even more prevalent. One thing I started years ago is to simply score by the minute but that isn't always a good reflection of round story either. Fighters risk all and work hard over the distance to not benefit from even the narrowest advantage to win a round. The majority do.

[vidgil]

I don't think any round should be scored even unless both guys just stand still and stare at each other for 3 minutes. To me an even round is a cop out, and admittance that you weren't paying close attention or you just don't want to make a tough decision. There's always something that can distinguish a round for one guy or the other. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's very subtle.

[Fenster]

I totally disagree with the notion that scoring rounds level is a sign of laziness, indecisive or a lack of knowledge. 10-10 is a legitimate score, part of the rules. To completely eradicate it from the process is to not follow the rules. Therefore, the scoring is not only skewed but worthless.

To pick a winner for the sake of picking a winner is wrong. I'd suggest it's what primarily leads to so many "robberies."

To even be thinking about subtle differences to determine a winner indicates how tight the round was.

[Master]

No matter how tight the round, make a decision.

[Fenster]

No matter how tight the round, make a decision.

You've already said that.

[smashup]

I'm with Fenster on this!
I've seen so many rounds before where i just think WOW as the two fighters batter each other and the fight swings like a pendulum with both men giving 100% dishing out and taking a beating.
Rounds like that need to be digested and/or watched again if your to pick a clear winner by the tiniest amount or nicking it by as little as one harder punch.
Some of you are oblivious to the fact that the 3 judges don't have the luxury of watching it again and have to score that round live as it happens with the minute in between added on as well, also anything could happen with regard to their view point i.e. one of the three could have his view momentarily blocked by the ref.
I wonder how many of us have actually sat and scored a fight live from inside the ring apron/ringside which is something i luckily have done loads of times in the past.
Trust me it's really not the same as watching from multiple angles on TV and so easy to miss something in the blink of an eye and there's a lot you don't see that you do see on TV
Your eye line is level with the fighters feet basically and the ref often blocks your view.

I think if two fighters have shared a blinding round and it it that close that there's doubt in your mind you should score it a draw instead rather than take a punt and score with your "Gut Feeling" so as to be fair to both fighters.

[X]

I suspect that a judge who forces himself to score a broadly even round as a 10-9 to somebody will inevitably score the next broadly even round 10-9 to the other guy.

[Master]

I suspect that a judge who forces himself to score a broadly even round as a 10-9 to somebody will inevitably score the next broadly even round 10-9 to the other guy.

Yes it probably does even itself out.

[ruthless rocco]

I've noticed that british commentators have a tendency to score more rounds even than american commentators. It seems to happen when a close fight starts to slip away from the british fighter--the british commentators start scoring even rounds despite the shift in the fight's momentum. It's as if they cannot face the truth that the british fighter is losing, and rather than say it outloud to their fellow countrymen, they just act like it's still an even fight.

[Batman]

I've noticed that british commentators have a tendency to score more rounds even than american commentators. It seems to happen when a close fight starts to slip away from the british fighter--the british commentators start scoring even rounds despite the shift in the fight's momentum. It's as if they cannot face the truth that the british fighter is losing, and rather than say it outloud to their fellow countrymen, they just act like it's still an even fight.

Funnily enough I was saying the exact same thing to someone just yesterday, Froch loves his 10-10 rounds.
However I don't think Boxnation are quite as guilty of it, I'm guessing that is because they know that they have a more hardcore type of boxing fan whilst Sky have more casual fans that tune in, I honestly think that Froch and Co are told to keep the scores ad close as possible to keep the casual fans interest (especially if the Brit is losing or struggling)