Should there be exceptions to "10-8" rounds?

[IamInuit]

Perhaps this topic has been brought up before, but I'm certainly not going to scroll thru hundreds of pages.

For instance a guy gets knocked down within the first 30 seconds, gets up and completely dominates his opponent, to the point of staggering him.

Or vice versa. Dominates a round from the onset, then gets floored towards the end of it.

I'm in favor of a 10-8 round. As difficult as knockdowns are, not to mention the machismo aspect of it, they should be rewarded regardless.

Thats an even round how you described and in fact depending on the domination level after the kd the guy kd'd could actually win that rd.

[Spicoli]

Regardless of 10 point must system, you lose a point rather a jab or accumulative bombs

[powerpuncher]

I will always give a 10-8 round for a knockdown and will never give a 10-8 round because a fighter beat their opponent really badly in a round. The rules are dumb though because they say that if the ref calls it a knockdown then you have to count it as a knockdown yet it's still to your discretion how you score it.

[Master]

I think judges are allowed to give exceptions remember Holyfield getting knocked down by Cooper but smashing him around the ring for 99% of that round.

[IamInuit]

I will always give a 10-8 round for a knockdown and will never give a 10-8 round because a fighter beat their opponent really badly in a round. The rules are dumb though because they say that if the ref calls it a knockdown then you have to count it as a knockdown yet it's still to your discretion how you score it.

Actually that's not true. There is nothing in the rules that says you must call a slip a kd should the ref call it one of discount a kd that is ruled a slip.

In addition there is nothing in the rules that says you must rule a 10/8 if a kd is ruled. The 10/8 is essentially based on a rd that was even but that's not written in stone because as the opening example suggests the round may have only been even briefly.

The same may apply to a point deduction. It depends on the when and what happens after. The person who loses the point does not automatically lose the rd.

[ykdadamaja]

I will always give a 10-8 round for a knockdown and will never give a 10-8 round because a fighter beat their opponent really badly in a round. The rules are dumb though because they say that if the ref calls it a knockdown then you have to count it as a knockdown yet it's still to your discretion how you score it.

Actually that's not true. There is nothing in the rules that says you must call a slip a kd should the ref call it one of discount a kd that is ruled a slip.

In addition there is nothing in the rules that says you must rule a 10/8 if a kd is ruled. The 10/8 is essentially based on a rd that was even but that's not written in stone because as the opening example suggests the round may have only been even briefly.

The same may apply to a point deduction. It depends on the when and what happens after. The person who loses the point does not automatically lose the rd.

With today's scoring and with the scorecards, the ref must indicate which round had a knockdown. Or else he would be in question. That's why they have supervisors in attendance from the Athletic Commission and from the sanctioning bodies.

So, once the ref says it's a knockdown, it must be scored as a knockdown. No instant replay.

What's disturbing me more is that when guys get knocked down in the ring, and the ref does not see it, he turns to the side-judge to see if whether or not the side judge has started the count. I think the ref should have more latitude to say if it was a knockdown or not, or to waive it off.

[IamInuit]

I will always give a 10-8 round for a knockdown and will never give a 10-8 round because a fighter beat their opponent really badly in a round. The rules are dumb though because they say that if the ref calls it a knockdown then you have to count it as a knockdown yet it's still to your discretion how you score it.

Actually that's not true. There is nothing in the rules that says you must call a slip a kd should the ref call it one of discount a kd that is ruled a slip.

In addition there is nothing in the rules that says you must rule a 10/8 if a kd is ruled. The 10/8 is essentially based on a rd that was even but that's not written in stone because as the opening example suggests the round may have only been even briefly.

The same may apply to a point deduction. It depends on the when and what happens after. The person who loses the point does not automatically lose the rd.

With today's scoring and with the scorecards, the ref must indicate which round had a knockdown. Or else he would be in question. That's why they have supervisors in attendance from the Athletic Commission and from the sanctioning bodies.

So, once the ref says it's a knockdown, it must be scored as a knockdown. No instant replay.

What's disturbing me more is that when guys get knocked down in the ring, and the ref does not see it, he turns to the side-judge to see if whether or not the side judge has started the count. I think the ref should have more latitude to say if it was a knockdown or not, or to waive it off.

Again that's not true. They will do it but they dont have to. Its "may" vs shall or must. The judge is not obligated to call a clear slip a kd. Whether the lab rats that are today's judges do so does not make it correct or rule abiding. Because they do is part of the problem and the examples are endless.

In addition there is no rule that says a kd must equate a 10/8 round. Thats another fallacy

[ykdadamaja]

I will always give a 10-8 round for a knockdown and will never give a 10-8 round because a fighter beat their opponent really badly in a round. The rules are dumb though because they say that if the ref calls it a knockdown then you have to count it as a knockdown yet it's still to your discretion how you score it.

Actually that's not true. There is nothing in the rules that says you must call a slip a kd should the ref call it one of discount a kd that is ruled a slip.

In addition there is nothing in the rules that says you must rule a 10/8 if a kd is ruled. The 10/8 is essentially based on a rd that was even but that's not written in stone because as the opening example suggests the round may have only been even briefly.

The same may apply to a point deduction. It depends on the when and what happens after. The person who loses the point does not automatically lose the rd.

With today's scoring and with the scorecards, the ref must indicate which round had a knockdown. Or else he would be in question. That's why they have supervisors in attendance from the Athletic Commission and from the sanctioning bodies.

So, once the ref says it's a knockdown, it must be scored as a knockdown. No instant replay.

What's disturbing me more is that when guys get knocked down in the ring, and the ref does not see it, he turns to the side-judge to see if whether or not the side judge has started the count. I think the ref should have more latitude to say if it was a knockdown or not, or to waive it off.

Again that's not true. They will do it but they dont have to. Its "may" vs shall or must. The judge is not obligated to call a clear slip a kd. Whether the lab rats that are today's judges do so does not make it correct or rule abiding. Because they do is part of the problem and the examples are endless.

In addition there is no rule that says a kd must equate a 10/8 round. Thats another fallacy

Well, I stand corrected if this is the case. But they often times don't go that route.