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

[Fenster]

I see fans moaning about this all the time, especially having a pop at pundits/comms/officials. For instance, it's noticeable that Froch does it a lot for Sky (he had four 10-10 rounds for Framp/Cruz II). I'm pretty sure I can remember big Glen do it regular when sat beside the brilliant Ian Darke.

I don't understand what's so wrong about this? Most non-obvious rounds - that don't produce a clear decisive winner - are open to interpretation, therefore lots of secondary factors influence our choice - which fighter you like the most, have money on, predicted would win, the style you prefer (slick, bulldozer), crowd influence, whether or not you like the camp/promoter, who's currently winning/losing, who has the sexiest bum, etc.

For example - how many times do we score rounds for the guy getting whopped, clearly behind on the cards, that then has a modicum of success? It's par for the course/common for pundits/comms to give a sympathy round (if you claim you don't/haven't you're lying), we subconsciously start favouring the poor sod getting walloped.

If you're undecided/clueless about the winner of a particular round then 10-10 is the fairest, most logical score. Whenever sound judges/fans say "it could have gone either way" then it should automatically be an even round. So scoring a round level gives a clearer indication of the overall fight than picking a winner for the sake of it.

Thoughts?

[TitoFan]

I agree, and it would cure some of what is wrong with judging.


Some fights are damned close, round by round. Judges, thinking that they have to pick a winner, sometimes force themselves.... and get it wrong. Rounds that should've been seen as a tie, go to one or the other. In the end, you could have one guy winning by 10-11 points, when in actuality the fight should be tied. Hell.... even with all 10-9 rounds, some fights end in a tie... six rounds for A and six rounds for B. Say for instance the fight has been a virtual standoff, only to have Fighter A begin to slightly dominate around Round 10 or so. Chances are, if a judge has seen Rounds 1-9 as a tie, he'll score 10-12 for Fighter A and he'll get his proper victory. If he's felt forced to give 10-9 rounds and has mistakenly given Fighter B 6 of those, he might end up with the wrong score for the fight.

Kind of convoluted (the above)... but hopefully I got my idea across.

[powerpuncher]

I agree too. Actually for a while, I started scoring a lot more rounds even because I thought it was more fair. I have slowly gone back to not scoring even rounds very often. It's just a tradition in boxing now to pick a winner of every round.

I personally have no problem with 6 rounds being scored even if they were close.

[Primo Carnera]

When I'm watching a fight, I always try to score rounds to one boxer and not give 10-10's. Admittedly that isn't always possible. I just think :
a. Surely one boxer was better than the other no matter by how little. And
b. The more 10-10 rounds, the more chance of a draw. The more draws, the more re-matches. The more re-matches the less chance of new blood breaking through, eventually leading to stagnation and standards dropping.
It gets to the stage where the more rounds that are scored 10-10 , the more a judge will feel that neither fighters deserved to lose and you'll get artificial draws.
I'll admit it's not ideal, because with the current scoring system, boxer A could shade 4 debatable rounds , another 6 could be scored even and boxer B could dominate 2 rounds doing everything but knock the guy down, and he would be the loser.
I also believe the scoring system is why most people perceive Kovalev as the winner against Ward, while in reality, Kovalev may well have been the aggressor , but you still have to land to win rounds. And Ward pinched rounds. It's about what you prefer, but skill always beats aggression.

[Master]

Anyone who scores a level round should be shot.

Decide one way and make a decision.

A level round should only be done in exceptional circumstances and when both fighters do not deserve to win the round.

[Spicoli]

I think it's easy to fall into a lull of just shrugging your shoulders during some fights and using 10-10 as a fall back. Quite possibly because the fights is a snoozer or in best case scenario because you have two guys trading in a phone booth all round. To me, in both instances it's easy to do. I just think there is always something to distinguish two fighters and action in a round. I mean literally every fight in history has had at least two punches thrown over 3 minutes. a 10-10 to me feels like "Meh, why bother". Indecisive and distracted. Given too many even rounds what business do I have harping on any 'close' decision when the fights over. I could not tell the difference and it makes 'could have gone either way' even more prevalent. One thing I started years ago is to simply score by the minute but that isn't always a good reflection of round story either. Fighters risk all and work hard over the distance to not benefit from even the narrowest advantage to win a round. The majority do.

[vidgil]

I don't think any round should be scored even unless both guys just stand still and stare at each other for 3 minutes. To me an even round is a cop out, and admittance that you weren't paying close attention or you just don't want to make a tough decision. There's always something that can distinguish a round for one guy or the other. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's very subtle.