Scoring knock downs.

In your opinion, a knock down rightfully

A) scores you a point
B) automatically wins you the round but only by 10-9 if you weren't winning the round otherwise
C) automatically gives you a 10-8 round or better.

I want both your interpretation of the rules as they stand and also your opinion of what they should be.

The poll question uses saturdays fight as an example - assuming for talking's sake that Clottey was winning the first round 10-9 knock down apart, how should the judges have then scored it accounting for Cotto's knock down?

 

Like the Undergarments it DEPENDS...

If, in a Particular Round, "Josh" Is Getting the Shit Kicked Out of him (w/Out Tasting the Canvas) THEN Knocks his Opponent Down, REED would "Only" Score that Round 10-9 in Favor of "Josh"...

If "Josh" was Losing the Round, but Not in a Terribly Decisive Manner & THEN Knocks his Opponent Down, REED Would Score that Round 10-8 for "Josh"...

N REED's Opinion, SOME Sort of Scoring ADVANTAGE Has to B Given, when Scoring a Knockdown...


REED:kidcool:

 

:doh:

REED JUST Picked Up on the Whole "Josh-Cotto" Thing...


REED::

ps. For the Record, REED Scored the 1st Round of Cotto-Clottey 10-8....

 

OK, cheers man. I'll let a few more people give their opinions and gauge the consensus before I dive in with my perspective.

 

I felt rd 1 was a pretty close rd. The KD of Josh cinched the rd for Cotto IMO and gave him an extra point at the same time making it 10-8 for Cotto.

If Josh had been kicking the shit out of Cotto in one of the rds where Josh dominated and it looked like Cotto was about to get stopped, but then Cotto all of a sudden drops Josh with a well executed punch. Then Cotto still loses that rd but he gains a point for the KD IMO making it a 9-9 rd.

So basically I judge a rd the same if a KD occurs or not. The only difference is if the rd is close enough to go either way then the KD will give that rd to the guy who dropped his opponent and give him a 2 point rd.

I hate scorers who automatically give a guy a rd because of a KD even when the guy was getting his ass handed to him.

 

In that fight I would have scored it 10-8 Cotto.

It does really depend. I thought the first round was pretty close.

For me to score it even (10-9 Clottey w/ point subtracted at the end) he would have had to have a dominating round up until the KD. Which he didn't IMO.

 

Why though? Is a knock down in itself (and it was a jab he was KD by, balance shot, wasn't hurt at all) not just worth a point? Assuming you would have given Clottey the round, even if only by a hair, you've effectively given Cotto a point for the KD plus two extra points for the value of the impact of the jab. 3 point swing.

I'm not criticizing, BTW, I just see so much variability and inconsistency in how people score rounds like this that I think it's something that bears some discussion and scrutiny.

 

I think it's automatically a 10-8 round in favor of the guy who scored the knockdown unless the knockdownee had totally dominated the rest of the round. Simply just winning it outside of the KD is not enough.

This isn't amateur boxing. A knockdown is a significant scoring punch in pro boxing that counts much more then any other non-knockdown punch. In most cases that should give the guy the round.

Yes, Cotto vs. Clottey should have been 10-8 IMO.

 

So in other words a KD is not worth a point at all? It's worth a 10-8 round barring exceptional circumstances? Interesting.

Any idea if there's an actual rule stating this?

 

No, it's not just a point.........it's also part of scoring the overall round. Jab or not, it was a clean KD. The rest of the round isn't scored seperately from the KD.

If, however a judge had believed it to have been a slip and the ref erroneously called a KD I believe the judge should have the leeway to score appropriately.

 

No idea, just my opinion.

 

It can't be 9-9 with 10 point must. The point isn't deducted at the end; it's deducted/accounted for at the end of the round.
I think an argument can be made for 10-10, but you really have to bend rules and technically it might not be possible with only one KD.

I like to think of a KD as 10 seconds of pure asskicking, free shots.
That usually means that most KD's will be 10-8 rounds.
When it isn't 10-8, it's because the KD sucked or the other guy was dominating or dominated after, but then it should be 10-9 for the guy who scored the KD, almost always.
10-10 would be a guy on the verge of getting stopped scoring a bullshit KD or something like that.

 

IMO, you first score the KD regardless of the damage the punch did. One point. Then factor in the damage the punch did in the context of the wider round and consider whether it was significant enough to change your scoring of the round sans KD. Potentially a second point. In this case the clear answer to that is NO, IMO, since it was nothing but a stiff jab that caught Clottey off balance. So the shot was worth 1 point, in my book, 9-9 round. That's effectively giving Cotto a full round for a balance shot KD and is proportionate.

To effectively give him 3 rounds for that shot seems difficult to justify in my book. :dunno:

 

Read the poll options, I take that into account.

With due respect, you can think of it as 10 seconds of whatever you like, but it's not, it's just a KD, which by my (possibly incorrect) understanding is worth a point and the effect of the punch in the context of the round.

I'd love to hear a theory on how scoring Cotto 3 rounds for a balance shot jab can be deemed proportionate? Seriously, I'd love perspectives on this, I'm not being a dick, I'm willing to be convinced.

 

i agree with most above... you have to get the round if you score a KD... if you score a KD but were dominated the remainder of the round then you win it 10-9, anything less than a pretty good ass kicking then you win the round 10-8

i also do not believe in scoring 10-8 rounds without KDs... even if you get staggered or hurt, i think you should not lose a point if you don't hit the canvas

 

Not sure where you get 3 rounds here. It's 2. Example: Cotto wins the first round 10-8 and Clottey wins the next two rounds 10-9...........you have a draw after 3 rounds.

Are you really suggesting Clottey should have won the round 10-9?

 

I think 10-8 without KD's is a judgement call but it should be a real serious ass-kicking..........not some of these 10-8 rounds Teddy Atlas gives out when it looks like one guy just took a round off.


............or when Mickey Ward had a 10-7 round on one scorecard against Emanuel Burton in an almost even round. ::

 

Wow Hut Hut, thanks for addressing all the posters early on except for me. What am I chopped liver or something?

Let's see, where did I put that invisible man avatar?

 

Well I have to disagree with both points. :: Im a big believer in 10-8 rounds for truly dominant rounds, especially in the context of extremely close, competitive fights.

Let's imagine how your scoring would pan out in a fictional 4 round fight.

Rd1: Fighter A records 55% of the damage in a quiet round (10-9)
Rd2: fighter B records 80% of the damage, nearly scores a TKO. (19-19)
Rd3: Fighter B records 80% of the damage, nearly scores a TKO (28-29)
Rd4: Fighter B records 65% of the damage but gets caught off balance by a jab. (38-37 to fighter A!?)

Would you stand by that score card? In a fight where fighter B has put twice as much hurt on the other guy than he received that's an absurd injustice in my book.

 

My apologies mate, I just wanted to see what the majority consensus was before I dived in with my take.:bears: You're the only one in the thread so far who seems any sense on the issue, in book.

 

Well shoot mate! All is forgiven.

 

It's effectively 3 rounds/points if Clottey would have won the round without the KD but then lost it 10-8. That's a 3 point swing.

I'm suggesting that any KD round, including this one, should be scored as it would have been had the guy not fallen over, first taking into account the hurt the KD punch/combo itself caused in the context of the round (which in this case was totally negligible) and whether that hurt is sufficient to change that scoring, before subtracting the point for the KD at the end.

So, IMO YES the round should have gone to Clottey on the cards with the KD subtraction at the end effectively making it a 9-9 round. A point for a KD basically.:dunno:

 

I do think it would be a bigger injustice to create an environment of judging that allows for even more room for error and "interpretation" which allows extra point rounds to be dealt out when they aren't deserved. Fighter A... if he was legitimately knocked down, well he should have stayed on his feet... his opponent did.

i think you have to put stricter rules on the judges for them to go by, because the way it is - its way too open to interpretation... and i think the bigger injustices are the 10-7 rounds for Ward over Burton as mentioned by Nobleart, or the 10-8 round 2 for Ayala over Bones Adams in a close fight that was decided by the extra point.

the way fights are scored is round by round, not cumulatively... i think its one of the unique parts of boxing that makes it so intriguing and strategic... guys like Leonard took full advantage of it in his day. otherwise just judge the fight after 12 rounds and say who you thought won.

 

and this is a theoretical poll correct? IF Clottey was winning the round pretty dominantly then got knocked down then i would score it 10-9 against him

however in the actual clottey - cotto fight i also scored round 1 as 10-8 for cotto

 

Very good answer, mate. I can see the sense in that. I guess I'm just an idealist in that I figure it shouldn't be too much to ask of a major sport to find competent, scrupulous judges that can be granted the degree of leeway needed for us to get the right man winning fights. But you may well be right - experience seems to show that it is too much to ask.

But on the KD issue, it's not a matter of leeway as such. You just say 'a point for a KD', score the rest of the fight as was. There's no more wiggle room for crookedness in that as in any normal round & I think that would be a sensible rule.

 

I gotcha - so you think that if clottey won round 1 even if not in dominant fashion the round should be scored 9-9?

 

I would say so, yeah. Effectively you get a point deduction for your arse touching canvass and in every other way the rest of the fight is scored the same. The hurt that led to the KD is factored into the hurt put on in the rest of the round just as if the KD hadn't happened, since you've already scored for that. It's the only consistent and fair way to do it, IMHO. Otherwise a KD can be worth 1 point in one circumstance or 3 points in another with no reference to how emphatic or hurtful the KD was.:dunno:

 

I see it similarly. I haven't watched the Cotto-Clottey fight, i'm just speaking in general.

If there's a round where i would have scored it narrowly 10-9 for one fighter in most cases i have no problem with scoring it 10-8 the other way given a knockdown.

I'm not saying i would only score it otherwise in a scenario where a fighter completely dominated his opponent for 2 minutes and 52 seconds, but suffered a lousy flash KD along the way. However they would need to have won a round in impressive fashion to gain that extra point back. To me it's not the same as a point deduction because of a penalty where you just score the round normally, and then subtract the point(s) from the total.

 

Personally i feel regardless of what is happening in the rd, if a kd happens,it's automatically a 10-8 rd. Example: if say we are playing football and my team has dominated the whole game but we keep fumbling on the 2 yd line. Should we then when the game because overall we were dominating? Knockdown= 10-8 rd They are pro's. Stay on your feet or lose rd 10-8. If you get knocked off your feet then get up and knock him off his feet (balance or not) then the rd goes as no KD has occurred.

 

You don't take it into account. You can't have a 9-9 round because of a knockdown.

Because it is "just a KD" it pretty much guarantees a win for the round AND an extra point. You have to score the KD. Since it is established that KD rounds are generally to be scored 10-8, you have to come up with a plausible reason it shouldn't be. Imagining that the time that the downed fighter is avoiding punishment is instead time that he is getting his ass kicked generally ensures that the round will be scored 10-8 like it is supposed to be.