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

[TitoFan]

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

[holmcall]

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

Ross?

[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.

[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?

[Master]

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

[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.

[Master]

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.

[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.

[TitoFan]

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.

[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.

[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.