What if there is no clear winner in a round. Why do you have to declare one? Why can't you just 10-10 it or even 9-9.
Thoughts?
I agree with you in principle, but in practice people don't like seeing even rounds scored and it makes judging the end result of a fight more confusing. If a fight is 116-112 then at a glance you know that the winner won 8 rounds to the loser's 4. If the fight is say 116-114 then some of the clarity in the final score is lost.
I think the only time a 10-10 score is warranted is if absolutely nothing happened in a round. If there's action then there should be enough to score for one guy or the other, but if nothing happens then nobody really deserves the round.
It's more of an American thing to never score even rounds isn't it? The argument being that a competent judge should always be able to find a winner over three minutes of action.
I think drawn rounds are appropriate. There should be some distinction between toss-up rounds and rounds where there's a clear winner. Some judges will use them as a cop-out, but it's not like judges don't cop-out of tough calls anyway.
It's more of an American thing to never score even rounds isn't it? The argument being that a competent judge should always be able to find a winner over three minutes of action.
I think drawn rounds are appropriate. There should be some distinction between toss-up rounds and rounds where there's a clear winner. Some judges will use them as a cop-out, but it's not like judges don't cop-out of tough calls anyway.
Maybe it is an American thing, because I hate even rounds. Like, really hate them.
Comment