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

[ross]

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"

[J_C]

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.

[greynotsoold]

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.