Could the 12th have been scored 10-7????

Now, I know some people find it touchy to take extra points away when there's no KD, but considering the fact that Vazquez completely dominated Marquez for the three minutes, and then scored a knockdown, would it be wrong to score that a 10-7?

Personally, I felt that it should have been a 10-7.

 

w/Out an Additional Knockdown, 10-7 is a JUDGEMENT Call...

Given how CLOSE the Fight was & the FACT that a Knockdown was SCORED, REED Feels 10-8 was the Right Way to Score it...


REED

 

I already suggested this before. I think it should have been a 10-7 too.

It makes no sense at all, that a more or less even round would be a 10-8 with the knockdown, and the vicious non stop beating that Vazquez gave Marquez with the KD would also be a 10-8.

Quite simply, he should get an extra point for that non stop beating. 10-7 indeed.

 

That's how I see it too. You give a point to a fighter that beat up another one for one round because you equate that beating with a knockdown but in this case, the knockdown was a direct result of that beating so Vazquez was rewarded for his work, there's no need to give him an extra point.

 

Had there Been NO 12th Round Knockdown, REED Could See a Judge Factoring N Vasquez's DOMINANCE & Taking an Extra Point from Marquez...

But Considering How CLOSE the Bout was, it Would've Been INappropriate to Take All Kinds of Points like that from Marquez...

The Cat ALREADY had a Low Blow Point Deduction,THEN the Knockdown...Taking Yet ANOTHER Point for Dominance would've Seemed EXTREME Under the Circumstances...

REED Frowns Upon a JUDGEMENT Call N the 12th Round of CLOSE Fight & MEMORABLE Trilogy....


REED

 

It could have been... judges have made more stupid stuff (1st round of Pacman-Marquez) - but it definitely shouldn't have been. 10-8 is for a KD or COMPLETELY dominating a round. You can't add up both like knockdowns. What's next u make degrees in dominating rounds because that differs a lot too... Also In a round where a knockdown is scored the other guy often if not usually dominates... now all of a sudden we make all that 10:7 rounds??? GET THE FUCK OUTTA here with that shit. We don't need to make it more complicated than it is. Marquez wasn't even REALLY on the ground and 10:8 is a FINE score for this round AND made the better fighter win. Leave it at that or u will have a lot of 10:7, 10:6 rounds in the future...

 

even w/o the knockdown, i would've scored it a 10-8. so yea, 10-7 sounds about right.

 

If you want a 10-8 round, knock the mofo down. You don´t get a goal in football, because you hit the post three times, and you don´t get a TD for being stopped at the one yard line three times. Vazquez nuthugger. :tease: :tease:

 

But REED, don't you think it's silly that if the round had been about even, he would have got a 10-8 all the same? Don't you think scoring should reflect such a beating?

Personally I think he should have been rewarded for the hardcore beating he put on Marquez, more than just the KD point.

If such differentials in scoring rounds were common place, it might encourage fighters that are behind to go for it more, if they knew it was likely to have a 10-8 round for a no KD beating, or a 10-7 round for a beating and a KD.

I really think it's a good idea. The scoring system as it is is slightly flawed.

Say fighter A just edges 6 rounds, close rounds, but he has a slight edge and is given the nod in those rounds. Another round is even, and fighter B gives fighter A a thorough beating in 5 rounds.

Now the fact is, most judges score even 1 sided rounds a 10-9, it's pretty rare to see a 10-8 round without a knockdown, and even rarer to see a 10-7 with a KD.

But if you watched my hypothetical fight as a whole, fighter B would look like the rightful winner, and should be.

If variable scoring in rounds was more common place, and fighter B gained a few 10-8 rounds he would win.

I think it would be a better, fairer method of scoring, that would probably make for more exciting fights too.

If you play it safe and edge the round, you get a 10-9, if it's an evenish round and you score a flash knockdown, it's 10-8.

If you go after your man and issue a raw beating it's a 10-8, and if you issue the beating WITH a knockdown, then a 10-7.

 

Boxing is about landing punches, not just knocking the other fighter down. Your post is retarded.

If a fighter lands MANY more punches in a 1 sided round, like Vazquez did, yes he should get an extra point.

 

But do you always give an extra point when there's a knockdown at the beggining of a round, the hurt fighter goes in survival mode and get tagged without returning fire for the rest of the round?

 

If it's as 1 sided as the 12th round on Saturday - yes.

If the fighter is fucked up enough, and can't sufficiently recover that he takes a 1 sided beating after the knockdown, it should be a 10-7 all the same.

 

A judge isn't supposed to judge one round based off of how the others went. Each new round is completely seperate from the last. Not giving a 10-8 because the fight is close should never happen.

 

Good, even though I disagree I cannot say you're not consistent.

 

Exactly. Winner of a round gets 10 points, loser gets 9 points. Knockdowns -1, point deductions -1 or -2, if you are not good enough to knock the other guy down, cry me a river. Marquez didn´t even illegally clinch (like for example Johnson against Woods in the third fight) to avoid the punches. So he bravely stood up to whatever Vazquez could bring and that counts for something as well. If you want to measure different degrees of winning a round, you need to introduce rounds of 10-5 to 10-10.

 

It was a 10-7 round. Infact the ref should have stopped the fight. Vazquez beat Marquez around the ring for 3 minutes.

 

there are rules of scoring for a reason. 10-7 is a subjective assessment of the events. It was a CLEAR Vasquez round prior to the last 30 seconds, but apart from the very end, at no point was Raffy "out on his feet" to the point of justifying an extra point.

This issue is a little touchy for me because of people who score Leonard Hearns II round 12 10-8 in favor of Leonard. Its just a dumb opinion, so I'm always weary of giving an extra point.

If there was no KD, you would want to make it 10-8 to reflect the beating Vasquez put on him, but with the KD, you can make it 10-8 without having to make excuses for why

 

No there's not enough scope with that, it's not fair.

Why do you think a guy who only just edges a round, should receive the same score as a fighter who dominates the guy from start to finish, beats the shit out of him, but doesn't knock him down?

It doesn't make sense, scoring should be more variable.

 

Its pretty simple, without the KD would you have scored the round 10-8? If yes, then I think 10-7 is reasonable.

 

Yes :bears:

 

So? I´m still waiting for my beer, I lost three weeks of vacation on your rugby game. Melbourne, pfffffff. ::

The real question is would MWS have scored it 10-8, if Marquez was beating Iggy all over the ring and I know the answer to that question. :tease: :tease:

 

I would have done yeah, it's not like I am a Marquez hater. I've always liked Rafael.

If Rafael issued that kind of beating, sans KD, I would have scored it 10-8.

 

Answer El Terrible.

 

That´s the rules. I don´t think a round should be scored 10-8, if you cannot knock the other fighter down, BUT I think a lot of knockdowns don´t occur, because fighters hold too much, when hurt or exhausted. I think clinching should be penalized much heavier and then we´d see more knockdowns and knockouts. That is the real problem, if you ask me. If you run out of gas, because you invested too much energy early, you shouldn´t be allowed to clinch your way to a decision or do it every time the other guy gets close like Wladimir Klitschko. Marquez didn´t do that, although he was totally exhausted and therefore was knocked down, which was punishment enough. Just take a look at the last ten seconds. Nine out of ten fighters would have stepped forward and played huggybear. Ricky Hatton would have impregnated Vazquez.

 

Of course I know that's the rules, it's not like I'm saying these people don't know how to score fights.

All I'm saying is perhaps these rules should be adapted and improved, quite simply to reflect the margin that one fighter wins a round by.

 

N THEORY, you're Right, but the Vasquez-Marquez Fight Featured SPECIAL Circumstances...

1. It was a MEMORABLE, HISTORIC Trilogy...
2. It was the FINAL ROUND of the Aforementioned Trilogy...
3. This Fight was LITERALLY Up for Grabs to Start Round 12...
4. A Knockdown WAS Scored N Round 12...
5. Marquez ALREADY Endured an IFFY Point Deduction Earlier...

There's NO Right or Wrong Answer, but Scoring a 10-8 Round w/NO Knockdown is PURELY a Judgement Call...REED Would've Felt BETTER about that if there'd Been NO OTHER Deductions AGAINST Marquez OR if he HADN'T Been Dropped N Round 12...

@ this Point N the Fight, the LAST Thing Boxing Needed was for the Ref or Judges to INSERT THEMSELVES Into the Story of the Fight...BOTH Vasquez AND Marquez EARNED the Right to WIN or LOSE the Fight Themselves, N round 12...

Vasquez Handled HIS OWN Business by Getting the Knockdown...As Baron Alluded to, Vasquez Rewarded HIMSELF by Dropping Marquez...If he HADN'T Scored a Knockdown then REED could Possibly See Scoring the Round 10-8...


REED

 

Question.

How did you guys score Gatti-Ward 1 round 9?

 

What bugs me too in that way of scoring a round is that you penalize a guy for his toughness. Marquez shows heart, hold on and even throws some punches back and you penalize him for willingness to not be knockdowned. I think that's unfair. I can see a 10-8 round if there was no knockdown, but once the knockdown happen, you don't deduct a supplementary point because the guy refused to go down earlier.

 

A judge looks at a fight as twelve 3-minute fights.

Special or otherwise, any circumstances are supposed to be thrown out the window when scoring a round.

 

But Being HONEST, How Many Judges DO That???...

U Think they WEREN'T Aware of the MAGNITUDE of the Trilogy they were Judging???...

Shit, how Many REFs Do That???...How Many Times has Arturo Gatti's TOUGHNESS been Silently ACKNOWLEDGED by Refs, when they may have STOPPED Fights Involving Guys w/LESS of a Reputation???...

Commentators/Announcers AREN'T Supposed to B BIASED, Either...


REED