View Full Version : Why did it become 12 rounds? Also why did scores change from 1 point a round to 10-9?


PlayerKiller
11-19-2011, 09:05 PM
I am sure the 12 round issue had a purpose, and I assume so that fighters had more energy as a guess.

As for the scoring, I am not sure why it went to 10-9 a round? Is it for the purpose if knock downs?

Anthony342
11-19-2011, 10:08 PM
I'm guessing because of all the guys dying in the ring after 15 round fights and 10 point must system so a fighter could win a round by more than 1 point if he scored a knockdown.

How does a round get scored if both guys score a knockdown in the same round anyway? And why can't judges see Compubox numbers if a round is close and they're unsure how to score it? Maybe that'd prevent some crappy judges' decisions. And if an obviously wrong decision is made (e.g. Williams/Lara), why can't it then be overturned?

UglyPug
11-19-2011, 10:16 PM
I'm guessing because of all the guys dying in the ring after 15 round fights and 10 point must system so a fighter could win a round by more than 1 point if he scored a knockdown.

How does a round get scored if both guys score a knockdown in the same round anyway? And why can't judges see Compubox numbers if a round is close and they're unsure how to score it? Maybe that'd prevent some crappy judges' decisions. And if an obviously wrong decision is made (e.g. Williams/Lara), why can't it then be overturned?


I might be wrong, but I think the Mancini/Koo kim fight death is the one that finally made it official - the switch to 12 rounds would literally save lives. . .

If both guys score a KD, it still has to be a 10-9 round, and it is subjective in the eyes of the judges in who they believe won the round. . . whose KD was more vicious? who was hurt more? aside from the KD who was winning the round based on the four criteria?

There are definitely arguments to be made for judges having access to compubox. . . but there are also counter-arguments as to why they should not. . .

decisions can be overturned by a commission, but the standard is VERY HIGH. . . Usually it won't be overturned based on a jduges decision alone. . . However, ordered rematches happen more often. . . Especially if a title is involved (that title has a govenring body that makes those decisions, although the official decision is not overturned). . . In order for the official judges decision to be overturned without something like a failed drug test, or something like proof of corruption, it's very unlikely. .

UglyPug
11-19-2011, 10:49 PM
oh shyt misread the second question! i THINK, just my guess, is that it enabled a fighter to "more convincingly" win a round, and thus enable a fighter who scores a knockdown, or who completely dominates a round, to be rewarded for doing so. . . It more realistically reflects the overall fight. . . For EX: Frazier beat Bonavena, but if they scored 10-9 back then, Bonavena might have won, or made it a draw because he scored two KD's. . .

Thread Stealer
11-19-2011, 11:12 PM
They slowly started going to 12 rounds after the Mancini-Kim tragedy, but there's more than just a few boxing fans who believe that was a smokescreen. Boxing was pretty big on network TV back then, and it's easy to fit 12 rounds + intros + interviews in an hour than it is 15 rounds.

There was actually a 15 round bout in 1997. I just learned that recently.

http://www.secondsout.com/features/main-features/live-or-die-the-passing-of-the-15-round-era-part-i-

Anthony342
11-20-2011, 03:06 PM
How about just stupidity? Or proving that the judges were wrong? Why is that not enough to overturn a decision? I mean, come on, nobody believes that Williams beat Lara, NOBODY, yet that ****ty decision still has to stand? Why should someone have a loss on their record that shouldn't be there? I can see if it's close, like Leonard/Duran 1 or Leonard/Hagler or even Pacquiao/Marquez 3, which many say was close, but when it's so obvious like Williams/Lara, something should be done to fix that. At least those judges were suspended and I heard retrained and have to wait a long time until they all get to judge a big fight again, that's a step in the right direction. The first Lewis/Holyfield fight was another example of poor judging and some people even think that maybe Holyfield might have won the second fight and there's probably about 100 more bad ones that history buffs here can come up with.

IronBoxer
11-20-2011, 03:27 PM
Because of the stupid Athletic Commissions and their stupid watered down rules.

Anthony342
11-20-2011, 06:45 PM
So if they're the commission, they should just change the rules.

TBear
11-21-2011, 07:53 AM
The thought at was the time that it involved the fighters safety, but television time supposedly made the most to make the change.