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

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?