A few things I've never understood about boxing...
by soulrise on Jun 29, 2010 6:56 AM EDT
Email
PrintEven though I've been a boxing fan for almost my entire life I don't pretend to be an expert and there's a few things that I've never really understood about our beloved sport. If any of you have answers or comments please feel free to share.
- Why do we have the 10 point must system? I mean why can't rounds be scored 1-0 or if there's a knockdown 2-0, 3-0 if there are two knockdowns, etc.? It'd make keeping score so much easier for those of us who suck at math. Is there an actual purpose to having the winner of a round get 10 points that I don't know about or is it just an arbitrary score that was picked?
- Why is boxing so against revealing the judges' scorecards round-by-round as they happen? I've heard the arguments that it will encourage fighters with safe leads to just coast and run the remainder of the fight leading to more snoozefests. But wouldn't it increase the drama as it would let the losing fighter (and the crowd) know that he FOR SURE has to go for the KO and can't afford to play it safe? I've also read the argument that it takes away from the pageantry, suspense, and tradition of announcing the final score for fights that go the distance. This doesn't make any sense to me either. If the fight is a blowout everybody knows who's winning anyway. But if the fight is close I think it would enhance the drama and excitement DURING the fight as the crowd and fighters follow along. You don't see the NBA or NFL masking the scoreboard during close games keeping secret tally of the scores only to reveal the results after the game is over. The changing leads in the games are part of the drama and for close fights I think revealing round-by-round scores from the judges would ramp up the drama as well.
- Speaking of judging, I've often noticed that in very close fights there will sometimes be one judge who scores it totally lopsided. Everyone jumps on that judge and says "how the hell could that judge have scored it by such a wide margin when it was such a close fight, is he/she blind??" Am I missing something or does it not seem reasonable that a judge might see all the close rounds in favor of the fighter whose style he/she appreciates more. For example if the judge favors clean accurate punching to a volume puncher who isn't as accurate I can see how that judge would score all the close rounds in favor of the accurate fighter. Thus a lopsided scorecard in a close fight isn't all that outrageous to me.
FanPosts are user-created content written by community members of Bad Left Hook, and are generally not the work of our editors. Please do not source FanPosts as the work of Bad Left Hook.
79 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On #2, the WBC has open scoring in title fights.
I’m personally not a fan. I feel like it ruins the suspense of the fight, and it doesn’t bring back too many benefits. Maybe it would be better if they read each judge’s scores after each round, so that the crowd can get on the ass of a corrupt judge, but as they have it set up, it doesn’t bring too much benefit, other than more fighters quitting early and thus not risking as much injury.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
But don't you guys think the losing fighter would try harder?
If the scores were displayed or announced after each round a fighter who mathematically has no chance of winning a decision would have no other choice but go for broke and try to get the KO right?
But don’t you guys think the losing fighter would try harder? … a fighter who mathematically has no chance of winning a decision would have no other choice but go for broke and try to get the KO right?
No, they have the choice of quitting, which is going to happen far more often. Some guys don’t have big KO power. Some guys just don’t fight like that. And a lot of guys aren’t going to fight like that because they don’t want to get knocked out. Fighters know when they’re losing by a margin that would necessitate a knockout. They don’t need it announced, and the open scoring that has been used hasn’t made anyone go for the gusto any harder than they might have otherwise.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Jun 29, 2010 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's had the opposite effect, if anything
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
I think it's hard to say which is more likely
For me, the lack of suspense is the key. I love the three minutes between the end of a great, competitive fight and the announcement of the scores.
It isn’t hard to say which would happen. We see open scoring fights all the time for WBC sanctioned fights outside of the US and it always makes the fight worse. I can’t think of one where it has provided positive drama.
But
Imagine what it would have done to a real barn-stormer such as Barrera/Morales II…. If either guy knew he was behind after 6, or 8, then how much harder could/would he have tried? And how would the other guy have reacted?
This sin’t me making a case for live scoring, but I do see how it could make very even fights even better. For mismatches it just makes the mismatch even bigger (see Vitali Klitschko/ Sam Peter)
Now, Tweek, boxing is a Man sport. There is nothing in the world more Man than boxing. It is Man at his most Man. So when you spar with Ned here, just dig deep into that most Man part of you. (Uncle Jimbo, South Park: Tweek vs Craig)
Im not that big of a fan either on open scoring, however I like one aspect of it. I think open scoring can stop corrupt judging. If we the fans are watching the same fight as the judges and we aren’t being bias for a particular fighter, we know who should win the round and who shouldn’t. So if you’re keeping score throughout the fight and one judge is just blowing it badly, you can see it, plus the commentators can call this guy out on the air live.
I think thats better than these guys keeping their cards secret until their announced while they can sneak out the building before we find out about the corruption that they took part in. I think they would be more hesitant to fix the scoring if everyone can see their cards live round by round, than them just turning in the cards at the end of the fight without no one seeing them previously.
I do agree
that if there WAS to be open scoring, then it would be most effective if they read the scores round by round, and they said which judge had which scores. The way the WBC is doing it, just reading the scores every four rounds, is a pretty half ass way of doing it.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Yeah revealing the scores every 4 rounds is bs
I’d like to see scores announced/displayed after every single round.
just turning in the cards at the end of the fight without no one seeing them previously.
But I think they turn them in at the end of each round.
Pray for Nick Charles
That was also my understanding
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jun 29, 2010 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh Okay, I didn't know for sure
But I really was refering to when the people in the stands and the people watching on TV actually find out this information. The judges turn in the cards, but they turn them into somone sitting ringside and it’s kept private until the fight is over.
I think after every round those judges scorecards should be shown to the people watching with the name and face next to them so we can know how their scoring the fight.
The reason I think they should do it after every round is because the round that just ended would still be fresh in the mind of the viewers, instead of every four rounds, where you have to try and remember who actually won what rounds, or even worse after the 12 rounds are over.
by The Floorer on Jun 29, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Point # 1
That is funny stuff. As you have to take points at times for infractions and going 10/8 and such on a knock down, you could go in the negatives if you just went 1 point. But that being said. To work out some of those issues would still be much easier than the 10 round must, I agree. I hate the tally after a fight I score. I don’t really hate math, it just hates me. I’d love to go 1 to nothing, 2 to nothing, 2 to one and so on…I’ve silently cursed the 10 point system, but never heard it before your post. Good eye!
I think open scoring has been experimented with, and I hate it on all levels. I like the building drama. I like the corners not knowing.
being a judge is almost like being a ref or umpire, its judgement on some level. And punches get through so quickly to both sides, often sitting at home some of it depends on the angle of the camera, so yeah, I’d say some depends on where they are seated and what they are watching at that moment.
I have always liked the aspects of a points system that started at 0 with the emphasis on you having to earn points. You have a good round but the other guy clearly won, 2-1. You and the opponent did absolutely nothing in the round 0-0. You knocked down the other guy and won the round 2-0. You get a points infraction, negative points because they are a negative impact on the fight. Then there would also be a measure of quality by adding up the points from both fighters.
There also seems to be little consequence for having either a good or bad scorecard. Commissions are very reluctant to fire or openly reward bad or good referees, respectively. At least in California, it is not entirely clear how you become a judge/ref. It seems that being a ‘top-level’ ref is akin to becoming a Supreme Court Justice in the US; it is a job for life.
by Waldo Rastel on Jun 29, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Regarding potential complications to 1 point rounds if there are penalties
I’d say just give the other figher +1 point. So if Fighter A won the round but was penalized a point for a low blow the score could be 1-1 instead of 0-0. Or if Figher A won the round but was penalized twice for low blows he would actually lose the round 1-2.
I know the 10 point system is here to stay but I just hate adding up my totals. And people say all Asians are good at math, HA!
As for the 10-point must system
I don’t know exactly how it started, but I do know that about 50 or so years ago, there were a lot of different ways of scoring fights, and it tended to vary by state (or national) commission. In New York, for example, fights were just scored by rounds, and the winner got one point, whether or not there was a knockdown. In Italy, there was a 20-point system. There were some states with 5 point systems. A bunch of other places used 10-point must.
Anyway, the NBA (now the WBA) decided to make all of its fights judged by the 10-point must system in the early 50’s. In order to have NBA fights take place in your state or country, you had to change your rules to conform to NBA rules, so most state commissions changed to the 10-point must system. When the WBC split off a few years later, they did the same thing with a bunch of foreign commissions didn’t belong to the NBA. The one laggard I know of is the BBBoC, which still uses a point-per-round system judged by only by the referee in domestic title fights.
Why they chose that over another system? I honestly don’t know.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
The BBBoC is retarded
No other way to put it, in my opinion.
I appreciate the ten point must system as crucial, as it is theoretically possible for it to be necessary to take all ten due to KDs and deductions. Incredibly unlikely, but feasible.
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jun 29, 2010 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions
interesting DC
Please elaborate. I believe I understand what you are saying, but I’d like a little more clarification.
About the BBBoC
Or the 10 point must?
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jun 30, 2010 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
10 point must
ten point must system as crucial, as it is theoretically possible for it to be necessary to take all ten due to KDs and deductions. Incredibly unlikely, but feasible
I think he means as opposed to a five point must
But really, I think the reason for 10 points instead of 5 is that it’s just easier to calculate. Plus, that way you don’t end up with negative points for a round for a deduction.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Where it gets dicey is when you have a point deducted from one guy and the other guy decks the guy who had the point deducted.
You start to get into thinking about 9-9 rounds.
Pray for Nick Charles
Nothing wrong with 9-9 rounds....
Now, Tweek, boxing is a Man sport. There is nothing in the world more Man than boxing. It is Man at his most Man. So when you spar with Ned here, just dig deep into that most Man part of you. (Uncle Jimbo, South Park: Tweek vs Craig)
As long as there's an actual deduction
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
The 10-10 round
Some rounds are pretty tough to call but handing in a 10-10 scorecard? C’mon throw that crap out – gef of the fence and find a winner. 10-10 does squat for a fighter who’s trained his arse off to win, Too often a fight’s been lost due to a lame and incorrect 10-10 round. Throw out the cursed draw in boxing too . You might as well stay in the dressing room, shadowbox for 12 rds and cruise home cashed up and unscathed. No draws in the amateurs but the pros? – where there’s more at stake? – hell yeah. “Ladies and gentlemen we have a draw”. Guaranteed to piss-off the paying public .
"Anytime you go thirty rounds with a guy, try to kill each other, and have the utmost respect for each other, no one understands that, but guys who have been to war understand it." - Micky Ward on Arturo Gatti.
hehe
wrong meds.
"Anytime you go thirty rounds with a guy, try to kill each other, and have the utmost respect for each other, no one understands that, but guys who have been to war understand it." - Micky Ward on Arturo Gatti.
Actually
I think it’s quite the opposite. If I were able to change the way that scoring is done, I’d want to see more 10-10 rounds for those too close to call and more 10-8 rounds for blowout rounds. At least that way the final score is more likely to reflect the way the fight actually went.
On the other hand, giving the judges more latitude would also mean more potential for abuse.
Three things I think would really help judging though: age limits, eye exams and better pay. The first two will help eliminate a lot of imcompitence (when you see those crazy scorecards, check out how often the judge is someone who needs to lean on the tarp just to see the action), and the last would help eliminate a lot of graft.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Jun 30, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I mean
Imagine you have a fight with 7 close rounds and 5 blowout rounds. The judges give the hometown guy all 7 close rounds, but give the challenger only the five blowout rounds. Even though the challenger pretty much beat the crap out of the hometown guy, the hometown guy ends up winning. Score a couple of those close rounds 10-10, or score a few blowout rounds 10-8, and the judges actually end up with scores that reflect what really happened in the fight.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Yes, and we are being way too harsh on judges given the hundreds of fights that are scored each week.
Only a rare few could be construed as totally partial and I am not sure I could name more than two or three. We may be woirking on the assumption that o many judges don’t get it, but that is a bad assumption IMO.
Pray for Nick Charles
I look at every round as a seperate fight - a fght within a fight.
In my eyes a 10-10 round is a bit of a cop-out and some judges award them too frequently- look for an edge. But I hear where you’re coming from – in a perfect world bias judging wouldn’t exist either..
"Anytime you go thirty rounds with a guy, try to kill each other, and have the utmost respect for each other, no one understands that, but guys who have been to war understand it." - Micky Ward on Arturo Gatti.
I was thinking this last night
Imagine you have a fight with 7 close rounds and 5 blowout rounds. The judges give the hometown guy all 7 close rounds, but give the challenger only the five blowout rounds. Even though the challenger pretty much beat the crap out of the hometown guy, the hometown guy ends up winning
When I got an absouloute horrible descision on fight night on xbox. Was disgraceful
by Sweet science on Jul 2, 2010 5:52 AM EDT up reply actions
You didn't get a KO
Or were KO’d youself on Fight Night?! I didn’t think that was possible!
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 2, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
nahhh
I was beating the shit out of him, but then he was sneaking rounds. Ended as a draw I think. It was ironic I was fighting with Pauile. I was like that Dick van Dick (Can’t remember his name) is a dick
by Sweet science on Jul 4, 2010 5:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm still proud of my ATG Heavyweight with pink trunks and dreadlocks
Even though I didn’t think 4 was nearly as good as 3.
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 4, 2010 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions
ur shittin me
4 is fantastic, still playin it
by Sweet science on Jul 5, 2010 6:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't get me started on what's wrong with 4!
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 5, 2010 7:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Well
Apologies for going off topic.
It is so far removed from real boxing, the countering system is ridiculously OP, the career mode is too easy and its rankings are poorly managed (I was p4p number before I became number one in any division!), the stats are a nightmare, the commentary makes me want to jam forks in my ears, the movement is all wrong, there are many aspects of boxing left out, such as hiring trainers and cutmen, nearly every single fight ends in a KO.
And some other stuff…
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 5, 2010 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah fair enough
I prefered the “corner” game in 3. and the countering you can tinker with in the settings.
Another thing is that no fighters are undefeated and all of them have about 8 losses no matter of how good they are
by Sweet science on Jul 6, 2010 6:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Apologies for going off topic.
It’s on topic enough, dude. It’s a boxing game. We’ve had threads take detours into World of Warcraft and Frost/Nixon, you’re OK.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
Good point
I’m suddenly remembering that I was part of those…
Good times back with Adamek – Golota.
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 7, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I hear you. Something I’ve thought about while scoring fights here for the last four years now (meaning I’ve done it a lot more than I ever did before) is the blowout rounds. It’s 10 point must, not 10-9 must. I haven’t yet come to a definite conclusion about this, so I’ve never tried to implement it, but more 10-8 rounds, and even more 10-7 rounds, makes a lot of sense to me. If a guy gets his ass BEATEN in a round and gets knocked down once, why not 10-7? Did he earn the “right” to stay at 10-8? If a guy gets creamed for an entire round but doesn’t go down, it’s probably scored 10-9 by 90-95% of judges across the globe. Why?
Flash knockdown rounds at 10-9, as Ted said, is also something I’ve been pondering, and something I’ve been a bit more liberal about. Like, I scored Cotto-Clottey for Cotto, and a big part of that was the “10-8” first round — it’s just instinct to go 10-8 a lot of the time, but was that REALLY a 10-8 round? I’ll call myself wrong and say that it absolutely was not. Knockdowns are great and all, but they are not all equals.
I’m softening on the 10-10 too. I think Teddy Atlas probably uses a few too many, but then again, maybe he doesn’t. Maybe he’s right on the money, at least in theory.
I think this discussion has swayed me fully over to the side I’ve been thinking about for a while now, probably around a year. I’m going to try and put this stuff into fight scoring from now on. I know not everyone will agree with it, but too much of it just makes all the sense in the world, and I really don’t give a damn for not changing the way things are done if it makes sense to change it. I don’t give all close rounds to the “champion” like some knuckleheads insist must be done, so why stick with something else that is accepted as “well, that’s just the way things are done!”
I had this problem come into my head again when I scored Chavez-Duddy as 115-113 for Chavez. I had a small back-and-forth here with someone about it, and he was right that it seemed close. I admitted then it seemed close to me too. Chavez clearly won that fight, IMO, and what would have made it different is I might have had a couple 10-8 rounds for JCC, because he really knocked Duddy around in a few rounds. It would have made it 115-111 or something like that, or 116-111 if I had scored one of the close Duddy rounds as a 10-10.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Jul 4, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I do think AZtlas uses too many 10-10 rounds
But his job is to commentate, not to pay attention to score rounds. I mostly give him a pass for his mediocre scoring.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
I'm on board with your line of thought too
10-9 rounds for flash knockdowns sounds right to me while 10-8 for total domination or 10-7 for total domination + knockdown sounds about right. I’d just be prepared for your scorecards to be much different from those of the official judges (as if that really matters).
If a guy gets creamed for an entire round but doesn’t go down, it’s probably scored 10-9 by 90-95% of judges across the globe. Why?
While I agree with you (and I really do) I also think that there is something to be said for a guy that can get hammered for a round and stay in there. I think of Andrade/Kessler as my prime example: Kessler banged Andrade from pillar to post for 12 rounds, and he had no right to be there after 12, but he showed extraordinary balls and strength to hang in there. I’d rather seethat than a guy who just gives up and hits the deck, or a guy who says “I don’t deserve to be getting hit like that”. Andrade deserved some real credit for his cojones in that fight, and as such I scored all rounds 10-9 Kessler (I think, since I don’t remember thinking Andrade won a round). And if that way is good for Andrade, why not “unnamed fighter X”, who displays a lot of the same traits in not allowing himself to be taken out, or knocked down, despite taking a shellacking?
That said, I do agree that more rounds should be given 10-8 without a KD, but I’d like to see that only when one guy is hurt, rather than simply outclassed.
Now, Tweek, boxing is a Man sport. There is nothing in the world more Man than boxing. It is Man at his most Man. So when you spar with Ned here, just dig deep into that most Man part of you. (Uncle Jimbo, South Park: Tweek vs Craig)
Or something like that anyway. :)
Now, Tweek, boxing is a Man sport. There is nothing in the world more Man than boxing. It is Man at his most Man. So when you spar with Ned here, just dig deep into that most Man part of you. (Uncle Jimbo, South Park: Tweek vs Craig)
I like even rounds and I like even more 10-9 rounsa when the knockdown is nothing more than a flash knockdown
Pray for Nick Charles
Definitely
That is in fact the correct way, according to most commisions.
So often what is prescribed by the reffing bodies is not actually applied.
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jun 30, 2010 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I wish judges would do that more
I think it would more accurately reflect a fight.
If I were able to change the way that scoring is done, I’d want to see more 10-10 rounds for those too close to call and more 10-8 rounds for blowout rounds
This ^
It would make scoring so much better, in all ways really.
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jun 30, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Great Great Post Brick
Boxing scoring has been one of my pet hates for years . Why should a round that is a toss up be scored 10-9 while a round that someone dominates ala Larry Holmes v Tex Cobb is also a 10 – 9 round ? I’d never thought of scoring more very close rounds as even . Its a good idea except for giving judges more power to abuse the system . Maybe the 5 point must system with more liberal use of 5- 3 and 5 – 2 rounds is the answer . Good Onya Mate!
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. " Hunter S Thompson.
At the end of the fight, the scoring should reflect what ACTUALLY happened.
Pray for Nick Charles
by Kid Blast on Jun 30, 2010 9:10 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Precisely.
Now, Tweek, boxing is a Man sport. There is nothing in the world more Man than boxing. It is Man at his most Man. So when you spar with Ned here, just dig deep into that most Man part of you. (Uncle Jimbo, South Park: Tweek vs Craig)
Perhaps judges should actually be required
To turn in a fairly sizable report on why they scored a fight the way they did. If there was a shockingly poor decision, the report may go some way to finding out why, and then weeding out incompetence and simple corruption.
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
What happens in some of the better states is that a judge must have a conference with the commission to explain a dubious
decsision. Teax is not one of them, however. Nevada is. as for bq. simple corruption., I submit it is rare.
Pray for Nick Charles
Fact is judges should be appraised for perfornace on an annual basisi. And they are in a lot of states.
Pray for Nick Charles
Yes
I daresay that ploitics and money get in the way though, which is a real tragedy for the sport.
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 1, 2010 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Politics yes; money, I don't think so. The risk-reward equation is not good enough IMO.
BUT POLITICS DEFINITLY DO AS IN HOLMES-SPINKS.
Pray for Nick Charles
open scoring
Hard to put into words how destructive it felt the only time I watched a fight with open scoring—took the heart out of everything, didn’t seem to make for better fights in the least. And, no, they won’t go for the knockout, a lot of them actually can’t, some just won’t take the risks involved against those odds—why shorten your fighting life-span over a lost cause? I thought it would be an improvement, but it wasn’t.
The thing about scoring
Is you are supposed to ignore the knockdown while deciding who won the round, then factor it in. This was done during the Cotto – Pacquiao fight, where both of Pacquiao’s rounds with knockdons were scored 10 – 9 by some of the judges.
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
Cotto was winning BOTH of those rounds, in my estimation — how do I swing over from 10-9 Cotto to 10-9 Pacquiao based only on knockdowns, and BOTH were borderline knockdowns? If anything, that seems like 10-10 to me. “Cotto won the round, but Pacquiao knocked him down. 10-10.”
My personal scoring is, as I said above, going to transform a bit. I know it’ll wind up looking different than everyone else’s, but whatever. And I’m not arguing with you here, more looking for what you (or anyone else) might think. Those Cotto-Pacquiao rounds you’re talking about are interesting here. Should those have been 10-10, 10-9 Pacquiao, or 10-8 Pacquiao?
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
Not “borderline” — “flash” is what I meant. Both were good shots, but I didn’t think Cotto was severely damaged by either of the knockdowns themselves.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
I say 10 - 9 Pacquiao
My ideas on judging these sorts of rounds are baded largely on this.
http://www.ringtv.com/blog/1320/when_does_a_knock_down_not_result_in_a_108_round/
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 7, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
OR 9-9
As in, Cotto won the round, but he got knocked down (-1).
Now, Tweek, boxing is a Man sport. There is nothing in the world more Man than boxing. It is Man at his most Man. So when you spar with Ned here, just dig deep into that most Man part of you. (Uncle Jimbo, South Park: Tweek vs Craig)
I hope that's a Max Kellerman joke!
No 9-9 rounds without point deductions…
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 9, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
10-10 you mean
Can’t have 9-9 unless there’s a deduction, hence 10-point must.
But I don’t exactly get why a knockdown should be given more credit if a fighter loses the round than if he wins the round.
Scenario A: fighter wins whole round, scores a KD at the end, judges score it 10-8 – he gets 1 pt for the KD
B: fighter loses the whole round, scores a KD at the end, judge scores it 10-9 for the fighter – he gets 2 pts for the KD
C: fighter loses the whole round, scores a KD at the end, judge scores it 10-8 for fighter – he gets 3 pts for the KD
So if you’re really supposed to score the round as a whole, THEN account for the KD, why is it that a judge never scores a round like Rd3 of Pacquiao-Cotto a 10-10 round? He would only get one point credit had he won the round, why should he get 2 for losing it?
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Good points
That does seem rather flawed.
It is actually uncommon to see those rounds just given as 10 – 9!
"All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him." - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jul 9, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
