Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting sick of seeing a guy NARROWLY edge out a round and get 10-9, and then see a guy rock his opponent 7 or 8 times and have him on the verge of being knocked out, and get the same 10-9 score? It's retarded. A guy who beats the shit out of his opponent in a round should, for all intents and purposes, get more of an advantage on the scorecards than a guy who pulled out a close "feeling out" round.

Of course I'm talking about Bradley getting his ass handed to him in round 2 by his Siberian opponent, only for it to be scored 10-9.

They have the right to hand out a 10-8 without a knockdown, I just wish these people judges would have the balls to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting sick of seeing a guy NARROWLY edge out a round and get 10-9, and then see a guy rock his opponent 7 or 8 times and have him on the verge of being knocked out, and get the same 10-9 score? It's retarded. A guy who beats the shit out of his opponent in a round should, for all intents and purposes, get more of an advantage on the scorecards than a guy who pulled out a close "feeling out" round.

Of course I'm talking about Bradley getting his ass handed to him in round 2 by his Siberian opponent, only for it to be scored 10-9.

They have the right to hand out a 10-8 without a knockdown, I just wish these people judges would have the balls to do it.

---

That is what the kicker is for me. There is no rule that I am aware of that the judges cannot award a kd when one is missed by the ref. So the judges blew it two fold. Not only did they miss a couple of kds that happened right in front of them but they also missed a round perhaps two that did not even need a kd to be scored a 10/8. Now on my card it was not the difference because factoring 2 kd's in I still had Bradley winning but its the official score cards that matter.I think there may be a case for this fight be changed to a TD if an official protest is filed.

Instant replay. Its unbelievable that boxing refuses to step out of the dark ages while the majority of the sports world passes it by. Jersey encouraged it but you really don't hear about it or see it implemented. We insist on literally denying the obvious.

The judges should have no less power as the appointed official-ref to call the obvious and exercise input in determining a fair verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting sick of seeing a guy NARROWLY edge out a round and get 10-9, and then see a guy rock his opponent 7 or 8 times and have him on the verge of being knocked out, and get the same 10-9 score? It's retarded. A guy who beats the shit out of his opponent in a round should, for all intents and purposes, get more of an advantage on the scorecards than a guy who pulled out a close "feeling out" round.

Of course I'm talking about Bradley getting his ass handed to him in round 2 by his Siberian opponent, only for it to be scored 10-9.

They have the right to hand out a 10-8 without a knockdown, I just wish these people judges would have the balls to do it.

---

I agree. Excellent post. Hopefully 10-8 rounds without a kd will be used more in the future. It just isn't fair that a fighter totally dominates a round , while the other guy edges a round , and the fight is even. Cheers

Just to play devils advocate here (cos honestly I do see merit in your argument).

But you could say it is harsh to judge against the fighter who had the courage and strength NOT to go down. Using the 2nd round with Bradley last night as an example, he didnt get knocked down but it can still go down as a 10-8? Why not just take a knee and buy some extra breathing space if its scored the same whether he does go down or not? Or would taking a knee and getting battered also be a 10-7? It kinda opens a new can of worms in some regard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

Just to play devils advocate here (cos honestly I do see merit in your argument).

But you could say it is harsh to judge against the fighter who had the courage and strength NOT to go down. Using the 2nd round with Bradley last night as an example, he didnt get knocked down but it can still go down as a 10-8? Why not just take a knee and buy some extra breathing space if its scored the same whether he does go down or not? Or would taking a knee and getting battered also be a 10-7? It kinda opens a new can of worms in some regard

---

true , but still , I think a beating in a round is more rewarding than a simple box and move strategy. This isn't the first fight where it happened . example - Dawson vs Johnson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

Just to play devils advocate here (cos honestly I do see merit in your argument).

But you could say it is harsh to judge against the fighter who had the courage and strength NOT to go down. Using the 2nd round with Bradley last night as an example, he didnt get knocked down but it can still go down as a 10-8? Why not just take a knee and buy some extra breathing space if its scored the same whether he does go down or not? Or would taking a knee and getting battered also be a 10-7? It kinda opens a new can of worms in some regard

---

If you take a knee you submit to a 10/8. Not sure what you are advocating. @Freedom posted this earlier.http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps9c1eafb2.gif How the flying expletive is that not called a 10/8 round?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

Just to play devils advocate here (cos honestly I do see merit in your argument).

But you could say it is harsh to judge against the fighter who had the courage and strength NOT to go down. Using the 2nd round with Bradley last night as an example, he didnt get knocked down but it can still go down as a 10-8? Why not just take a knee and buy some extra breathing space if its scored the same whether he does go down or not? Or would taking a knee and getting battered also be a 10-7? It kinda opens a new can of worms in some regard

---

If you take a knee you submit to a 10/8. Not sure what you are advocating. @Freedom posted this earlier.http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps9c1eafb2.gif How the flying expletive is that not called a 10/8 round?

---

it should be. Ref must be thinking, oo f**k , i made a mistake

Looking at that little clip, how many times does a ref need to walk after a fighter and restart his instruction before he thinks to himself "oh look, he is hurt"

Thats a clip from the 1st round. I was making reference to the 2nd round where he was getting rocked bad but didnt go down.

A judge can score a round however he sees fit. That was the whole idea behind going from a rounds system to a points system, to differentiate between a guy winning a round and a guy winning it big. There was a movement back in the early to mid 90s, if my recollection is correct (it may have been late 80s to early 90s), to encourage judges to use the entire 10 point system. The ten point system, if I understand correctly, was a reaction to the 5 point system and the variance a 2 point round would create in scoring. That has never made sense to me, really, though I do recall a fight years ago with 5-1, and 5-2 rounds.
And then the Brits had a system where they used half points; 10-9.5, for example. That was only phased out 25 years (or so) ago, or less.

The first round was a mistake and should have been called. Marquez/Barrera is another obvious one. In that instance you MUST have instant replay. It is too important and ignorant not to have instant replay to call out these things between rounds. The ref can just get on with it, but inbetween rounds be informed and thus the fighters too. There is no reason not to do so.

In terms of the hurtful round two, I don't think it is any of the refs business. If a man wants to stay on his feet then that is his right. Surely that is a judging decision and then I disagree. A round is a round and either you win it or you don't. To score a round 10-8 without a KD, it must be something truly exceptional. Boxing ISN'T about how many times you stun a man, but other factors too. I like an effective jab and high output. Give me 2 minutes of controlled jab and combinations without power over 30 seconds with two big right leads. The other man dominated you for most of the round and outlanded you massively. You simply don't deserve the round on hurting a man twice and being thoroughly outboxed the rest of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_C

Just to play devils advocate here (cos honestly I do see merit in your argument).

But you could say it is harsh to judge against the fighter who had the courage and strength NOT to go down. Using the 2nd round with Bradley last night as an example, he didnt get knocked down but it can still go down as a 10-8? Why not just take a knee and buy some extra breathing space if its scored the same whether he does go down or not? Or would taking a knee and getting battered also be a 10-7? It kinda opens a new can of worms in some regard

---

It's not really a new can of worms, because judges have not only the ability, but the responsibility to distinguish between what is a 10-9 and 10-8 round, regardless of whether or not there was a knockdown. That's one thing that a lot of boxing fans seem to be unaware of or just don't understand: you don't need to score a knockdown to win a 10-8 round.

As far as your argument, I can see what you're getting at but the fact is boxing DOES NOT score points for courage or toughness. Those are great traits to have, but the philosophy of boxing, the sweet science, is to hit and not get hit. So if you have the courage and toughness to survive a brutal onslaught, great, that gives you the ability to fight on and try to turn the fight around (just like Bradley did). But under no circumstances should a guy be REWARDED for taking a beating.

The point of the 10-point must system was to quantify how dominant a guy was in a certain round, and if the Siberian guy is getting the same score for what he did to Bradley in round 2 as Floyd Mayweather would for winning a round with a few pawing jabs, there's something seriously wrong with the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

A round is a round and either you win it or you don't. To score a round 10-8 without a KD, it must be something truly exceptional. Boxing ISN'T about how many times you stun a man, but other factors too. I like an effective jab and high output. Give me 2 minutes of controlled jab and combinations without power over 30 seconds with two big right leads. The other man dominated you for most of the round and outlanded you massively. You simply don't deserve the round on hurting a man twice and being thoroughly outboxed the rest of the time.

---

Boxing is about clean, effective punching. How can you be any more clean and effective, short of knocking a guy out, than Siberian guy was that round?

And by saying "a round is a round", you're agreeing with the statement that a guy can dominate a round, lay a beating on his opponent, stun him multiple times, then get the same score as a guy who wins a round by landing 3 jabs. It's absolutely rediculous thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting sick of seeing a guy NARROWLY edge out a round and get 10-9, and then see a guy rock his opponent 7 or 8 times and have him on the verge of being knocked out, and get the same 10-9 score? It's retarded. A guy who beats the shit out of his opponent in a round should, for all intents and purposes, get more of an advantage on the scorecards than a guy who pulled out a close "feeling out" round.

Of course I'm talking about Bradley getting his ass handed to him in round 2 by his Siberian opponent, only for it to be scored 10-9.

They have the right to hand out a 10-8 without a knockdown, I just wish these people judges would have the balls to do it.

---

While I agreewith your statement I think it’s very difficult to draw the line between a 10-9and a 10-8 round and I’m afraid that will generate more controversies. More thanthat, this could become a dangerous tool in the hands of corrupted judges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iwng100

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting sick of seeing a guy NARROWLY edge out a round and get 10-9, and then see a guy rock his opponent 7 or 8 times and have him on the verge of being knocked out, and get the same 10-9 score? It's retarded. A guy who beats the shit out of his opponent in a round should, for all intents and purposes, get more of an advantage on the scorecards than a guy who pulled out a close "feeling out" round.

Of course I'm talking about Bradley getting his ass handed to him in round 2 by his Siberian opponent, only for it to be scored 10-9.

They have the right to hand out a 10-8 without a knockdown, I just wish these people judges would have the balls to do it.

---

While I agreewith your statement I think it’s very difficult to draw the line between a 10-9and a 10-8 round and I’m afraid that will generate more controversies. More thanthat, this could become a dangerous tool in the hands of corrupted judges.

---

Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.

---

I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.

To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?

Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".

And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.

Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.

i proposed half points. "0.5" ... why does everything have to be a point? if a fighter goes down..it's one point, if he goes down again in the same round..it's half point.

if a fighter is hurt and doesn't go down.. like in the Bradley fight round 1... judge has the right to give a half point deductions...cuz Ruslav won the round and hurt him..it should mean more than just a regular round... also, the second round... Bradely was on queer street the whole time and never went down..how is that a 10-9 round...? just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.

---

I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.

To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?

Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".

And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.

Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.

---

Someone has never scored a round wrong before

i dont agree

there has to be more hard fast rules about how to score a round rather than leaving more to interpretation

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.

---

I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.

To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?

Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".

And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.

Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.

---

Cant agree. There have been and will continue to be tons of even rounds. I think its wrong to award a round to someone when there was not a clear winner. Many, many first rounds especially over history have been even rounds. Many today can be called such. A "feel out round". Nothing in the ten point must system says you have to find a winner in a given round when there was not one. Even rounds exist in the scoring system because even rounds exist. I've called even rounds plenty of times over the course of my life and it had nothing to do with being lazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.

---

I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.

To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?

Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".

And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.

Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.

---

Cant agree. There have been and will continue to be tons of even rounds. I think its wrong to award a round to someone when there was not a clear winner. Many, many first rounds especially over history have been even rounds. Many today can be called such. A "feel out round". Nothing in the ten point must system says you have to find a winner in a given round when there was not one. Even rounds exist in the scoring system because even rounds exist. I've called even rounds plenty of times over the course of my life and it had nothing to do with being lazy.

---

But do u agree not enough rounds are scored even. I find rounds that I have scored even judges have given to the home town guy, poss because he is suaded by cheers from the crowd.

I'm not suing every close round should be scored even but a round where u can make a good case for both fighters winning should be scored even

*I risk getting run out of here with my crazy ideas... BUT what u guys r talking about is in relation to my partial point system... why does it have to be a whole point? why does a guy HAVE to win 10-9... if rounds r so close, why not have a 10- 9.5 round?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigstinkybug

*I risk getting run out of here with my crazy ideas... BUT what u guys r talking about is in relation to my partial point system... why does it have to be a whole point? why does a guy HAVE to win 10-9... if rounds r so close, why not have a 10- 9.5 round?

---

just as daft an idea

noone would have the slightest idea whats going on

or are you taking the piss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.

---

I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.

To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?

Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".

And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.

Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.

---

Cant agree. There have been and will continue to be tons of even rounds. I think its wrong to award a round to someone when there was not a clear winner. Many, many first rounds especially over history have been even rounds. Many today can be called such. A "feel out round". Nothing in the ten point must system says you have to find a winner in a given round when there was not one. Even rounds exist in the scoring system because even rounds exist. I've called even rounds plenty of times over the course of my life and it had nothing to do with being lazy.

---

But do u agree not enough rounds are scored even. I find rounds that I have scored even judges have given to the home town guy, poss because he is suaded by cheers from the crowd.

I'm not suing every close round should be scored even but a round where u can make a good case for both fighters winning should be scored even

---

Yes I do agree and everything else you mentioned here. They are not counted nearly enough and whether you can make a case for either or neither that's an even round.