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

[IamInuit]

Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.

I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.

To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?

Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".

And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.

Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.

Cant agree. There have been and will continue to be tons of even rounds. I think its wrong to award a round to someone when there was not a clear winner. Many, many first rounds especially over history have been even rounds. Many today can be called such. A "feel out round". Nothing in the ten point must system says you have to find a winner in a given round when there was not one. Even rounds exist in the scoring system because even rounds exist. I've called even rounds plenty of times over the course of my life and it had nothing to do with being lazy.

[Silkeyjoe]

Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.

I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.

To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?

Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".

And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.

Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.

Cant agree. There have been and will continue to be tons of even rounds. I think its wrong to award a round to someone when there was not a clear winner. Many, many first rounds especially over history have been even rounds. Many today can be called such. A "feel out round". Nothing in the ten point must system says you have to find a winner in a given round when there was not one. Even rounds exist in the scoring system because even rounds exist. I've called even rounds plenty of times over the course of my life and it had nothing to do with being lazy.

But do u agree not enough rounds are scored even. I find rounds that I have scored even judges have given to the home town guy, poss because he is suaded by cheers from the crowd.

I'm not suing every close round should be scored even but a round where u can make a good case for both fighters winning should be scored even

[erics44]

i dont agree

there has to be more hard fast rules about how to score a round rather than leaving more to interpretation