Scoring rounds even! 10-10? What's the problem? More rounds should be 10-10. Fact.

[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.

[Master]

No matter how tight the round, make a decision.

[Fenster]

No matter how tight the round, make a decision.

You've already said that.

[smashup]

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.

[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.

[Master]

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.

[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.

[Spicoli]

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 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 .

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.

[Alpha]

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 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 .

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.

[Master]

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

[Alpha]

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.

[Spicoli]

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 . 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.

[TitoFan]

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.

[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.

[Alpha]

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.