Ok I don't see how it can be fair to differeniate between a KO and a TKO, surely they should be treated as the same thing? It's a complete lottery as to whether a fighter fails to beat the count or whether the ref intervenes beforehand and waves the fight off. Surely if the ref stops the fight because in his opinion the fighter was unfit to carry on then you can take it as a given that if it did carry on the result would have been a knockout.

I think you should get points for correctly picking the overall decision , win , lose, or draw and then extra points for the specifics so for example win = 3 points if you predict correctly a knockout in round 5 and its a knockout in round 7 you get 3 ectra points for the knockout but no bonus points for the round.

So you have 3 levels of points to gain, firstly who wins, secondly the nature of the win, (KO, UD. MD, ect) and finally the round it ends in.

That way is surely fairer than losing all your points because you predicted Manny winning in 8 rather than 10 for example.

The extra advantage of this is that it would be a far more accurate reflection of each entrant's ability to predict results, eg they would be picking up a few points regularly with each correct prediction and so would righly always be rated higher than someone who is totally wrong 9 times out of 10 but once in a blue moon scores a hail mary and gets a round 4 stoppage due to cuts correct and shoots up to the top of the leaderboard.

The fairest system should reward consistency not flukes.

Let me give a football analogy (uk not us but you can equualy apply)

Chelsea are currently top of the table well clear on points because the keep winning each game. It would be ludicrously unfiar if Man Utd defeated Sunderland 10-0 and so were given the 14 points to draw level! That would be absurd, c'mon guys you can see that