Examples of 10-8 Rounds w/ no KD

List some notable examples of 10-8 rounds with no KD.

Off the top of my head, Mayweather Jr/Gatti, pretty much every round after the 3rd was 10-8.

There were a couple in the Trinidad/Mayorga fight as well, don't remember the exact rounds.

 

Roy Jones Richard Hall. Almost every round was 10-8.

 

the most recent example I can think of is round 10 of Khan-Maidana

 

I think it was round 9 of Pac-Cotto. Cottos wifie left the building straight after.

 

Mtagwa-Lopez round 12
Collazo-Hatton round 12

 

I think there should be more 10-8 rounds. And more 10-10 rounds. That's what I think.

 

Vitali Briggs RD10
Maidana Khan RD 10
Briggs Botha RD 10
Tszyu MAG RD 5

 

Jones-Hall is the first thing that came to mind.

 

Agreed.

 

Bowe Golota 2 round 7. Golota outlanded him something like 80 to 10

 

Just wondering, do you guys think Vazquez-Marquez 3 Round 12 was a 10-8 round before the knockdown?

 

I think so.

 

I was going to score round eight of Douglas-Tyson 10-8 for Douglas, prior to the knockdown. which saved the round for a beleaguered Tyson.

 

I don't score 10 - 8 unless there is a knockdown.

 

To me, a guy has to clearly be hurt for me to score it 10-8 without an actual knockdown

if it were just about "well, one guy clearly won every second of the round" then we could all just arbitrarily deduct points... "Whitaker/Haugen? shit... I scored that fight 120-95" ... did Pete beat the crap out of Haugen in every round? yes... but he floored him and really appeared to hurt him only once, that point loss is supposed to be for a guy getting knocked down, any deviation from that sort of defeats the purpose of the scoring system itself

 

That was how I scored it at the time. CDogg has just made an exemplary point that you can't just dole out 10-8 rounds for dominance --- otherwise, as he rightly says, Whitaker would've won fights even more convincingly than he already had.

That said, I felt (sadly) justified scoring the last round 10-7 for Vazquez. He bulled Marquez around the ring like a man possessed, hurt him, out-scored & out-fought him, & had him reeling to the point where his uninterrupted brutality was the cause of that final, fateful knockdown.

It meant Vazquez won by two points on my card. Maybe the greatest fight I ever saw as it was happening in my lifetime, BTW.

 

I believe giving extra points because you were impressed by a dominating round lends itself to bias. People say "Wow he trounced him that round. I'm going to give him an extra point". This is incorrect. The person who wins the round gets a point. Why arbitrarily award another due to the manner of the win?

10-8 only in the event of a knockdown.

 

I also think a KD should only be worth a point. I have so many important, important opinions on this matter!:Steve-Dave/MMA:

If Douglas was dominating the round and Tyson got a KD, IMO it's a 9-9 round (10-9 Douglas with the KD point deducted at the end). A 3 point swing, just for a KD is unjustifiable, IMO. IF the KD seriously hurts the other guy that's another matter and should get factored in.

 

That's the argument against it - that judges are too incompetent and corrupt not to abuse the power of a nuanced scoring system. IMO, where it exists, incompetence and dishonesty already manages to do it's damage just fine as is, unrestrained or shamed by having to do it blatantly in the current system. So i don't think theres much downside.

In the current system a round a guy edges gets scored the same as a round the other guy dominates and I don't think that's fair. And as I said in the previous post, seeing 3 point swings for flash KDs does my little box in, too. An ideal scoring system should properly reflect the hurt laid on in the fight.

 

10-8 minus a knockdown is a part of the sport, though. It has long-standing precedence, whether it's appreciated or not.

Personally, I think it has a place.

 

This is the key counter-argument and it is a very good one at that IMHO. I mean, look at round 10 in Khan-Maidana. I thought that could well have been a 10-8 round but once you add that kind of subjective element into proceedings you can cause plenty of trouble. Scoring is subjective enough as it is, thank you very much, without having endless battles between people about 'what qualifies a 1-8 round without a KD'...

MTF

 

Mayweather-Gatti round 5. That was a 10-7 round if you ask me. Thought Gatti was going to die.

 

A few pac-Margarito rounds fit that description also..

 

Disagree.

If a man is beaten the hell up in one sided fashion, hurt badly and reeling around...10-8 is justifiable. I'll point you to exhibit A: Mayweather-Gatti round 5

 

I understand what you're saying, but IMO it's every bit as flawed as scoring every round with tunnel vision, and defaultly awarding a round to a fighter solely based on a knockdown scored.

I believe that unnecessary confusion is created by the 10-pt must system and that KD's should be treated like point deductions. If Fighter A commits a foul but otherwise wins the round, the official scorecard reads 10-9 for that fighter, with "-1 point" marked in the notes section.

The same should be applied for knockdowns, as there have been plenty of rounds where a fighter won the round but suffered a fluke KD.

 

Yeah, I was gonna say earlier that Tszyu-MAGO round 5 (mentioned by Irish) was as brutal as any KD round I've ever seen. Same for the round you mentioned, really just about any round in that fight.

 

:bears:

 

That's the nature of boxing though. Hit the canvas lose the round. I personally believe that scoring in it's current fashion needs to remove as much subjectivity as possible. Fluke kds are also in the nature of boxing and are an incentive for a losing fighter. A fighter that has his winning round undone by getting kd'd might learn a valuable lesson and tighten up his defense. it's actually one of the things I love most about the sport.

I don't understand the notion that it's somehow unfair to just award a guy the round. That's like saying a bball player should get 4 points for a particularly nasty dunk. It's not penalizing a guy to award him the round, that's the point of boxing.

I won't say I disagree entirely with everyone here. However the scoring system in it's current fashion should not award more than a point for a winning round with no kd. Change the system and maybe we will all agree.

 

So because a fighter comes close to taking out his opponent but couldn't finish him, you want him to have an extra point based on dominance? Who decides what's dominant enough to get that extra point? Is it something where we can come back later and say: X lost that fight to Y but if you correctly score round 5 as 10-8 based on dominance then he should have won?

Way too subjective in the current system.

 

I don't disagree that flash knockdowns should be scored differently than what would be considered a 'standard' one. The knockdown itself also should not be looked at in a different light depending on the rest of the round.

However smashing somebody to pieces and have them lumbering all over the ring out on their feet (an extreme example yes) but them just barely managing to remain mostly vertical shouldn't be considered 10-9 in the same way as a guy who landed 2 jabs to 1 over 3 minutes.

Does that leave things open to even more subjectivity and possibly more controversial scoring? Quite possibly, maybe even likely considering some of the inept judges out there. In principal though improvements to the scoring system like more 10-8 and 10-9 round makes sense because it more accurately gives an account of the fight.