Should you be allowed a 10-9 or 10-10 round, WITH a KD??

The alternate to the other thread.

If my memory serves me correctly...round 2 of Holyfield-Moorer 1 was scored 10-10 even though Evander scored the one KD in that round. That scoring decision was the difference in the eventual outcome of the fight.

So if one fighter absolutely dominates the round but the other fighter scores a KD as his only contribution, should the dropped fighter automatically be on the losing end of a 10-8 round?

 

I can't see winning a round 10-9 in which you were knocked down. I can see 10-10, but would have to be in extreme cases.

 

Agreed. It'd have to be the type scenario where the knockdown was of the ultimate cheapness. (such as slipping on a wet spot and having one hand barely graze the canvas) After that, the guy takes his mandatory count and then does a number on his opponent for the rest of the round.

 

Sorry..Evander didn't LOSE the round, but it was scored either 10-10 or 10-9...not the usual 10-8 for a KD.

 

I also think that if a fighter scores a KD and does not suffer one himself, he can't lose the round, but I could see 10-10 in extreme cases and 10-9 should be more common than it is now. I don't like the trend where you score an automatic 10-8

 

No, you're 100% right in what you initially stated. I was agreeing with you. That round should have been scored 10-9 Holy.

Here's an interesting round - Phillips-Tszyu, Round 7. Going from memory, Tszyu was winning the round, but was dropped at some point.

Judge A scored it 10-8 Phillips; Judge B scored it 10-9 Phillips; Judge C scored it 10-10, basically covering the full gamut.

Had a KD been ruled in Marquez-Barrera Rd 8 (or was it rd 7), that would've created a hell of a controversy. Marquez was winning that round to the point where a 10-8 score would've been justified. Had the KD counted, then I could see the scenario where it's scored 10-10, and then minus one point for Barrera for hitting Marquez while he was down.

 

Slightly different, but in the second round of Kelley-Hamed both guys went down. Two judges scored it 10-10 and one had it 10-8 for Hamed. I thought 10-9 for Kelley would have been the correct call

 

This is where subjectivity comes into play.

In the ABC judges clinic, the instructors actually encourage the practice of putting on blinders and focus on clean punching. They tell you to NOT try to determine for yourself the severity of a knockdown unless it's blatantly obvious, or to overrule a referee's call even if you know it's incorrect.

In the case of Hamed-Kelley, from what I remember, Kelley won the majority of the round but Hamed appeared to score the much more convincing KD of the round.

I don't disagree with the 10-10 call in that round, but based on how judges are instructed/encouraged to score rounds, I was surprised that none of them scored it 10-9 Kelley.

 

[1] That's just fucking stupid.

Of course a judge should try to determine the severity of a knockdown. That's what judging a pro fight is all about.

And to tell you to just focus on 'clean punching', well, that's exactly what people (Americans) bitch and moan about when it comes to the amateurs. (even if it is only the perception and not the reality)

[2] I have mixed feelings on this one, but I can see the logic to deferring to the ref's call. However, that can usually be dealt with (fairly) by referring to [1] and by treating the alleged kd as a kd, but giving it minimal deference (which is actually quite a bit of deference).

[3] Without ever having been to an instructional class, it seems to me that a large amount of time should be spent on the situations described in this thread and getting a consensus of what the correct scoring should have been and why. Or, if you aren't looking for a consensus, then they should be instructing the judges why a 10-9 call is the best way to judge such and such a round. But, then--and this is the key--the reasoning behind it should be expressed somewhere in the section of how to score a fight in some sense.

 

No, he should not.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but look at round eight, Douglas-Tyson. That, to me, was verging on 10-8 for Douglas, when Tyson landed the hail mary. Of course, everyone just instantly scores it 10-8, Tyson. Is that fair? Of course it isn't fair --- Tyson's uppercut should be balanced against his getting plastered, especially toward the tail-end of the stanza. Perhaps an even round would be the right call, & perhaps not, but 10-8 Tyson was definitely not the way to go.

I don't think you should automatically win a round by two points if you score a knockdown, irrespective of circumstances. Of course, unofficially, we all know that's the way it (unjustly) works.

 

Believe me, I agree. Even better is the fact that Duane Ford is (or at least was) the chief instructor. I understand the spirit of removing as much subjectivity as possible from the equation. But there are better ways of going about it.

I think this is preached to discourage the practice of ignoring a KD and still scoring 10-9 in the other guy's favor.

Actually, the last two that I attended both featured a scoring activity based on rounds with multiple knockdowns.

 

The reason I don't have a problem with a 10-8 Tyson round in your example is because it was a real and big knockdown. Douglas was hurt and took his time getting up. It's the type of knockdown that deserves full credit. I generally treat a real knockdown like this...imagine that the fighter on the canvas is getting hit with clean punches the entire time that he is down...if that's enough to give the knockdown-scorer the round alone, then it's probably a 10-8 round.

You may believe that it it was not. That's when it probably is a 10-9 round for the knockdown-scorer.

If you disagree with the ref's call and feel that the knockdown was not a real knockdown...well, you score it, but then you're looking at the 10-9 default for the knockdown scorer and possibly a 10-10 if the knocked down fighter was winning big. That said, I don't remember Holy Moorer being anywhere near a 10-10 round when it happened, but I haven't watched it in forever.

(edit) obviously, this is just my opinion on how to score a fight because I think that the best way to score a round is to score it for the fighter you would have rather have been in the round, but also by acknowledging that the point of a boxing match is to knock the other guy down.

 

A KD is a point in my book. A point.

 

Obviously, if the guys hurt by the knock down that has it's own implications, scoring wise, same as if he gets hurt on his feet. But the event of arse & canvas kissing itself, should just be a point.

3 point swings for balance knock downs are an utter joke.

 

I understand you. I just don't agree, really. Douglas should get some score-based credit for belting Tyson about like a ragdoll, balanced against being knocked down.

 

I'm not even positive I agree with myself because I haven't watched that round in so long, haha.

Fact is, so long as the difference is only a point (10-9 or 10-8) or (10-8 vs 10-7 in say rd 12 of dlh/quartey) it really doesn't make much difference in the fairness of the outcome of the fight. People shouldn't always agree on scoring. Hell, we put judges on different sides of the ring because everyone knows that things can look different depending on your view.

Bad scoring, imo, is when I think a round clearly belongs to one fighter and is scored for the other fighter. That's what I would like to see judge's judged by, but it's not so easy to do because we all see the tv view and the judge doesn't. I'll save my rant for how I'd like to judge judge's for a different time.

 

I look forward to hearing that, MikE.