Scoring knock downs.

10 - 8. That's the rules.

 

10-8 without kd should be used and 10-7 with a kd should be used way more often imo, fighters should be rewarded more for dominating a round than just edging it.

 

Agreed.

 

You know we hear all of the time how subjective judging a fight is, and why one judge can have it this way and the other that way. So where's the subjectivity when it comes to knock-downs? Why is there no place for it there? I know I can certainly discern a knock-down in which the fighter hitting the canvas is severely hurt from a flash knock-down that does little more than interrupt the fight for 8 seconds. I think these kinds of things should be taken into account when a judge deposits his score-card.

Judges should use their brains to assess . Otherwise, we may as well go to computer scoring.

 

A knockdown should not be viewed as just a "point".. then it becomes an academic argument where we start fighting over how a point is deducted and how the other points up to that point affect that point, etc.,etc.

When one professional fighter knocks down another professional fighter, you are dealing with the mother of all small victories in a prizefight (KO being the large victory of course). Even if it is an off-balance sort of thing, you must take into account that one fighter lured the other in to an off-balance position, or conversely one fighter got too careless in his attempts to score his own knockdown, and then a well-timed punch knocked him down.

This is what the pros train to *avoid*, this is what they make sure in sparring every damn day does *not* happen to them.... and then their opponent made it happen. To me, this is why a 10-8 round is most appropriate as opposed to trying to figure out how to work in a lost "point". Unless one fighter was so blatantly dominant up to the point of the knockdown that even the knockdown cannot outweigh his dominance, a 10-8 is appropriate.

You could argue this is somehow unfair, and you would be wrong, since (for example) in the Cotto/Clottey fight, Josh Clottey had the opportunity over 11 more rounds to "simply" do the same "off-balance" punch to Miguel Cotto.... but he couldn't, could he? This demonstrates how significant the knockdown was, and it was properly scored as such.

 

Good post. I agree.

 

Agree :bears:

 

:bears:

 

But that suggests a jab should be scored with the same weight as a right-cross, or a left-hook. Doesn't it?

I see your point about balance being a component of a fighter's ability to avoid getting knocked down, but then how do you reconcile that with a knock-down that truly hurts the opponent and for example, could change the course of the fight?

Max Kellerman says some stupid things. But there's at least two of his mantras that I agree with. The first is: in judging a round the judge should ask himself, "who would I rather be at the end of that round," and score the round accordingly. The other issue he's brought up that makes sense to me is for judges to be more liberal with the 10 points they have to play with. Why should a round in which one fighter just barely edges out a round be scored the same as a round in which one fighter batters the other around the ring? Generally, those two very different circumstances would be scored the same, 10-9. Why should that be? Why shouldn't it be incumbant on a fighter who's taken a shelacking in a previous round to return the favor in order to catch up? Why should a shelacking be cancelled out by a fighter's landing a few more jabs than his opponent in a subsequent round?

At the heart of the matter is what Lederman says before every fight: "with a great emphasis on clean punching."

Boxing would be a much more entertaining sport IMHO if judges stuck to that criteria and were less hesitant to hand out 10-7 or even 10-6 rounds.

My guess is we'd see a lot more fights like Castillo/Corrales or Limon/Chacon and less fights like ODH/PBF or PBF/Baldomir if the judges acted in kind.

 

Argentina does the equivalent of what you want and it doesn't make any difference as to how people fight. Nor does it really seem to make any difference at all from what I can tell.

 

Seems I'm in a minority of one here....or one and two 'halves' as it were, since Double & lb 4 lb seem to half agree.


But I'm gonna stand by my opinion, regardless!:flip: I'm obstinate like that. The reason being, I still think the ultimate objective of professional boxing and what the scoring for it should be solely based on is putting hurt on the other guy. That's it. The significance of a knock down in boxing to me and the reason it warrants a change to the scoring at all is because it is generally the most hurtful punch that puts a guy down. Any other reason and it just becomes like a technical infringement or something, it becomes arbitrary and abstracted from the business of what boxing is actually about.

Outlander says it should automatically be 10-8 for a balance shot because it's what boxers train all day to avoid. So what? Should we take a point off for getting caught with a lead right hands too, or for squaring up, or for drawing their feet together, or throwing the left hook without their right by their chin, or overextending with the right or any of the other hundred things they train all day to avoid doing? We don't score for technical correctness, we score for putting hurt on the other guy.

A KD should be a point. That's a whole round. And the rest of the round should be scored based on who put more hurt on. It's quite clear I should be running boxing.

 

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

All rounds should be 10-10 unless you can land your opponent on his ass that's the whole point of boxing