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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No matter how tight the round, make a decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

No matter how tight the round, make a decision.

---

You've already said that.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Yes it probably does even itself out.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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)

Betcha some of those judges who are forced to pick a winner every round invariably end up tossing a coin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Betcha some of those judges who are forced to pick a winner every round invariably end up tossing a coin.

---

Ross?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmcall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Betcha some of those judges who are forced to pick a winner every round invariably end up tossing a coin.

---

Ross?

---

No.

CJ didn't flip coins. She had her score ready before the Floyd-Canelo fight and just made believe she was actually scoring it. ;D

I think 10-10 rounds should be scored more often. I think the WBA uses a .5 scoring system for certain minor titles. I wonder if that would help or not. A clear round winner 10-9. A close round 10-9.5 etc. Or does that just create more chaos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

I think 10-10 rounds should be scored more often. I think the WBA uses a .5 scoring system for certain minor titles. I wonder if that would help or not. A clear round winner 10-9. A close round 10-9.5 etc. Or does that just create more chaos?

---

Chaos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

I think 10-10 rounds should be scored more often. I think the WBA uses a .5 scoring system for certain minor titles. I wonder if that would help or not. A clear round winner 10-9. A close round 10-9.5 etc. Or does that just create more chaos?

---

Chaos

---

Who doesn't love a little chaos? It is boxing after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

I think 10-10 rounds should be scored more often. I think the WBA uses a .5 scoring system for certain minor titles. I wonder if that would help or not. A clear round winner 10-9. A close round 10-9.5 etc. Or does that just create more chaos?

---

Chaos

---

Who doesn't love a little chaos? It is boxing after all.

---

Too much detail, keep it simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

I think 10-10 rounds should be scored more often. I think the WBA uses a .5 scoring system for certain minor titles. I wonder if that would help or not. A clear round winner 10-9. A close round 10-9.5 etc. Or does that just create more chaos?

---

Chaos

---

Who doesn't love a little chaos? It is boxing after all.

---

Too much detail, keep it simple.

---

Yes scoring should be kept simple, hence my agreement with more 10-10 rounds. The .5 system sounds good in theory but I think it still has it's controversies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

I think 10-10 rounds should be scored more often. I think the WBA uses a .5 scoring system for certain minor titles. I wonder if that would help or not. A clear round winner 10-9. A close round 10-9.5 etc. Or does that just create more chaos?

---

In theory it's not a bad idea. Give the scoring a finer adjustment, so tight rounds can be scored accordingly. Unfortunately, most judges probably have a hard time with whole numbers from 1 to 10..... imagine how they'd do with decimal places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

It's a legitimate score there are times we all have them. To score one way or another just for the sake of a 'clear' winner wouldn't be bright. But with many judges it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse to encourage them to basically not make a decision, flip a coin as mentioned. What they need to focus on is effective punching, basics 101 to arrive at fighter A or fighter B. The rules by the ABC points out they 'must know who is winning a round at any given moment and there are 3 degrees of 10-9 rounds with close, moderate or decisive :cwm13: It kind of reminds me of NY encouraging judges to score 'more 10-8' rounds without actual knockdowns. Mind you this is coming from a guy who regularly scored multiple 10-10's in nearly every fight ;D.

Honestly the 10 point system seems set up for controversy and an exercise in backwards math. It doesn't regard what the reality is in spots. To me a knockdown should be an immediate point deduction, however convincing and regardless of them coming back to win a round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

It's a legitimate score there are times we all have them. To score one way or another just for the sake of a 'clear' winner wouldn't be bright. But with many judges it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse to encourage them to basically not make a decision, flip a coin as mentioned. What they need to focus on is effective punching, basics 101 to arrive at fighter A or fighter B. The rules by the ABC points out they 'must know who is winning a round at any given moment and there are 3 degrees of 10-9 rounds with close, moderate or decisive :cwm13: It kind of reminds me of NY encouraging judges to score 'more 10-8' rounds without actual knockdowns. Mind you this is coming from a guy who regularly scored multiple 10-10's in nearly every fight ;D.

Honestly the 10 point system seems set up for controversy and an exercise in backwards math. It doesn't regard what the reality is in spots. To me a knockdown should be an immediate point deduction, however convincing and regardless of them coming back to win a round.

---

That's where I think the .5 system works in theory. Say a fighter gets knocked down but wins the rest of the round decisively; it would be the perfect opportunity for a 10-9.5 round for the fighter who scored the knockdown. Flash knockdowns could be scored similar. We all have those rounds that are difficult to score. By awarding the fighter we think just nicked it a 10-9.5 may give a better reflection of the actual overall outcome. I'm not too fussed on rematches or draws. If it's a fight I think could have gone either way then I'd be happy with a draw. If the fight is decent then a rematch would be natural. Otherwise the fighters move on to other things for the time being.

It might be fun to go back and scored some close fights this way.

The round you describe would be 10-9 to the fighter that scored the knockdown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

The round you describe would be 10-9 to the fighter that scored the knockdown.

---

Usually although some judges still score that 10-8. I just like the idea of a bit of variation. Like @Spicoli said there are different degrees to a 10-9 round and a .5 system in theory gives the opportunity to reflect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

The round you describe would be 10-9 to the fighter that scored the knockdown.

---

Agreed. You can get too complicated with this .5 stuff. Still, forcing judges to score rounds 10-9 no matter what tends to skew fights in the wrong direction, IMO. Even rounds can help keep close fights close in the scoring, with 10-9 rounds being reserved for clear winners of the round. As far as the .5, it's another tool to fine tune the scoring. It could be made available, but with the right training and the right minds behind the scorecard. The main thing here is training. No system will work if the judges don't know how to score a fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

The round you describe would be 10-9 to the fighter that scored the knockdown.

---

Agreed. You can get too complicated with this .5 stuff. Still, forcing judges to score rounds 10-9 no matter what tends to skew fights in the wrong direction, IMO. Even rounds can help keep close fights close in the scoring, with 10-9 rounds being reserved for clear winners of the round. As far as the .5, it's another tool to fine tune the scoring. It could be made available, but with the right training and the right minds behind the scorecard. The main thing here is training. No system will work if the judges don't know how to score a fight.

---

The round that emphasised that was Holyfield v Bert Cooper when Evander was smashing Bert around the ring and got knocked down and then when he got up carried on battering Cooper for the remainder of the round. I could have given that 10-10. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

The round you describe would be 10-9 to the fighter that scored the knockdown.

---

Usually although some judges still score that 10-8. I just like the idea of a bit of variation. Like @Spicoli said there are different degrees to a 10-9 round and a .5 system in theory gives the opportunity to reflect that.

---

The breakdown of .5 seems like a decent avenue but can only imagine it becoming even more a chaotic exercise in fractions. Not that it wouldn't work in theory but again, it all comes down to a judges training, standards and accountability that need to be improved first imo.

That round scenario sounds exactly like Holyfield vs Moorer 1 round 2 as an example. One that has always stood out for me. Maybe because I'm a Holyfield fan and the round ultimately cost him the title ;D. Moorer boxed very well with that sharp thudding jab most of the round if I remember right. Winning it early no doubt and near the very end Holyfield catches him clean with hook for hard knockdown. Now to me that in instantly a -1 from Moorer. It doesn't matter how well he boxed and how many he landed, clearly Holyfield did the hurting. To me it erased whatever work he did or at the very least proved more effective. A lone judge scored it 10-10 even. I'd score it 10-9...minus the 10 point must system 9-9 as Holyfield 'lost' much of the round. But in NO way should Moorer be given a 10 point round. It's just false.

Training is the trick. We've all seen cards that have left us scratching our heads. Until the judges are held accountable and made an example off things won't change.

Am I being a proper thicko here but what's the difference between scoring a round 9-9/10-10? The overall outcome is still the same, no?

Judges being held accountable is fair enough, but unless a judge is consistently scoring the opposite of their colleagues and/or the majority then you'll always get a rick here and there. Every fan moaning and groaning about judges/scoring seem to think they're an infallible perfect scorer. But if you sift through rd-by-rd threads, after the event, the fan scores are all over the shop/contradictory.

Every ex-boxer/trainer/ref/judge/spit bucketman working in TV obviously need lessons in scoring, as the "expert fans" slag the shit out of them every week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Judges being held accountable is fair enough, but unless a judge is consistently scoring the opposite of their colleagues and/or the majority then you'll always get a rick here and there. Every fan moaning and groaning about judges/scoring seem to think they're an infallible perfect scorer. But if you sift through rd-by-rd threads, after the event, the fan scores are all over the shop/contradictory.

Every ex-boxer/trainer/ref/judge/spit bucketman working in TV obviously need lessons in scoring, as the "expert fans" slag the shit out of them every week.

---

Spot on. Judges need to be monitored and if they are consistently handing in bad cards; well outside the general consensus then they should be stood down for awhile for further training.

There's been boo-coo threads of scoring in general. If we're going there, there's plenty of things that can/should be done or at least considered in an effort to fix it. If it wasn't a real problem, us fans wouldn't be bellyaching after just about every decision. Nothing should be discarded initially, as all ideas deserve some consideration.

For starters, I don't get the time it takes between the end of the fight and the announcing of the decision. Sometimes we get some sort of explanation which doesn't fly. Honestly, how hard can it be to collect three cards and add the totals to the totals of the previous 11 rounds. Delays in this process, only to announce an unpopular, controversial decision, just add fuel to the fire and raises speculations of fudging or some other nonsense.

We've talked about using 5 judges instead of 3. Now we're discussing .5 increments. They've tried announcing scores mid-fight (bad idea). Bottom line is there apparently is no authoritative body within boxing whose role is to fix these maddening problems once and for all. Yes boxing is tough to score... but it is hardly the only sport which relies on judges' appreciation. Considering the time and effort that fighters spend to get ready for a fight, it continues to be shameful to leave it up to sometimes inept, sometimes corrupt (sometimes both) judges, working with a system that could certainly be improved.

There has always been talk of implementing new ideas to improve things but nothing seems to ever happen.

Pod index rates judges performance & consistency but is relatively unknown.
Judges having access to monitors to refer to has also been mentioned.
Using noise reducing head phones to stop distraction & crowd influence.
The use of instant replay to review and make a call.
Anyone heard of Punchforce?
There are many others. Unfortunately there is no one overall fix but some of these combined can help to improve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Judges being held accountable is fair enough, but unless a judge is consistently scoring the opposite of their colleagues and/or the majority then you'll always get a rick here and there. Every fan moaning and groaning about judges/scoring seem to think they're an infallible perfect scorer. But if you sift through rd-by-rd threads, after the event, the fan scores are all over the shop/contradictory.

Every ex-boxer/trainer/ref/judge/spit bucketman working in TV obviously need lessons in scoring, as the "expert fans" slag the shit out of them every week.

---

Mate do you have any idea how difficult it is to maintain infallible scoring from home while consuming adult beverages, eating chips, ignoring phone calls all while a loud barking dog runs around the room??? That my friend is focus! It takes years to master and should not be dismissed ;D.

Yep really no difference between 9-9 or 10-10 other than one does reflect what may have actually happened in a round. I think when we have judges 'adding' points to follow a 10 point must system it can get convoluted and ripe for "mistakes" with some judges. Rules are rules though.