Pac-JMM and the 10-10 Taboo

During the HBO broadcast, one of the announcers mentioned how the sport’s governing bodies now officially frown upon scoring a round as even.

This is unwise, as it enables the following scenario. For all practical purposes, if you fail to KD your opponent in a round one—but otherwise dominate him—all he has to do is squeak out round 2 for the fight to be even.

I think this is what made Saturday Night’s decision so unsatisfactory. JMM won more rounds decisively while Pac was given more even rounds. The 10-10 taboo adds more subjectivity to an inherently subjective scoring system. It forces judges to invent reasons for awarding a fighter rounds. Ergo, one of Lederman’s justifications: “He looks better doing it." Well, let’s just give the Super Bowl trophy to Tom Brady then. Or better yet, just hand it to his supermodel GF.

Or (Lederman again); “Defense! Marquez is swelling, Manny’s not.” Hey, by that standard, JC Chavez was better at defense than Meldrick Taylor, as evidenced by Taylor’s face.

I see little gain and a lot of loss by the effective banning of this legitimate scoring tool. Frequent 10-10’s would encourage more action, since in order to win a round you have to win it decisively. Alternatively, boxing could use a 10-8.5 round, in the event of a dominant round with no KD.

At a time when other sports aim to curtail subjective perspectives by using tools like instant replay, Boxing is enabling more of it. Boxing judges should default on 10-10 unless otherwise proven.