Why don't people/Judges use the 10-10 round very often?

[:::PSL:::]

I know people give Teddy Atlas shit for scoring lots of rounds even (I can't say, I havn't watched any fights where he is guest judging) but I scored a couple rounds even in the Pac JMM fight just because it was so hard to differentiate and it was back and forth action.
Lots of people were arguing here about the first round and everyone admitted it was hard to score so why not a 10-10 round? Is it because judges are encouraged to find a clear cut winner of a round to help with scoring a fight?

I guess what most judges are looking for is the QUALITY in the fight, not QUANTITY.

e.g.

JMM won the overall HBO compubox percentage. But Manny won the RBR scoring because he was the aggresive and actually the one whose been doing more damages against Marquez.

[Fenster]

I believe it's always been the understanding in Britain that American judges, especially Vegas judges, try to always find the winner of a round.. so it was more common to see 10/10 rounds in Britian.. over the years ive found this to be bollocks.. without having stats to prove it.

Hope this pointless nonsense is helpful.

[The Fightfan]

Well we do use a ten point must system which basically means someone has to win the round.Even if both fighter's get knocked down in a round.They (the judges) still have to determine who was more dominant in the round.I do agree 100% though.Going to last weekend's fight of Pac-Marquez.The first round was about as even a round as I've seen in recent years.

[BoomBoom]

A good judge can distinguish the winner of a round, no matter how close.

[Kev]

A good judge can distinguish the winner of a round, no matter how close.

haha I love your sarcasm

Actually the real answer is that most of the judges are actually chickens taught to play tic tac toe.

They peck either the left box or right box after every round and their handler marks it accordingly.

Only a few chickens are able to understand to peck in both boxes for an even round hence we don't see it happen very often.

At least that's what I believe to be the case.

[SigmaMu]

A good judge can distinguish the winner of a round, no matter how close.

haha I love your sarcasm

Actually the real answer is that most of the judges are actually chickens taught to play tic tac toe.

They peck either the left box or right box after every round and their handler marks it accordingly.

Only a few chickens are able to understand to peck in both boxes for an even round hence we don't see it happen very often.

At least that's what I believe to be the case.

I agree. I have the same problem and or because I am a bit baised when watching a fight if the round is close, I will give it to the guy I like. I too would have to say that for some strange reason I am afraid to give a 10/10 because I am chicken pecking person as you have so perfectly described. We need to be re-taught in this area. No one should be afraid or emberrassed to score a very close round even Steven.

I mean I might as well flip a coin which would be just as wrong. know what I mean.

[Dizaster]

I think it wouldn't be a bad thing for judges to score a 10-10 round/s if it is nearly impossible to pick who won the 'round.. I've seen 'round that no matter what way you look at it, they were even... You'd simply be flipping a coin, or picking some completely random and irrelevant reason why one fighter has won an even 'round... If it's possible for a fighter to only JUST win the round in the eyes of the judges, then it is also possible for a round to be completley even by the judges.. But they pick a winner anyway.. This is where you get split decisions on a close fight with one judge scoring 117 for one fighter, and another judge scoring 117 for the other fighter... That tells you the fight was all about perception, and what tiny "convincing" thing each judge found to give the round to their fighter...
If 7 rounds were even, fight wise, give them 10-10 each for those 7 rounds, then let the scoring in the remainder rounds sort out who won... Instead of having half a fight that has been completely even, scored compeletely randomly and playing a large part in deciding a fight that has been even for most of it...

I have a feeling though, which may be completely wrong,,, that if a fight had 2 very every even rounds in a row, a judge would give a point to one fighter in the first round, then a point to the other in the second round.. Hence scoring them even, if their fighting appeared to be even yet they still had to pick a winner for each round...


It can go either way... And we would still have super shit judges who are watching an entirely different fight to the one happening right in front of them.