By Terence Dooley (photo by Richie "The Master" Maldonado)
There has been a great amount of hullabaloo over the final cards tallied in the recent fight between Ike Quartey and Vernon Forrest. Unfortunately I have to wait until Friday to see the fight on UK TV but one facet of the judge’s scorecards caught my eye. I ought to stress right now, though, that I am a huge fan of Forrest, I am delighted he has won and could be soon in the title mix; this is not a biased attempt at presenting a rematch case for Quartey. In any case the makeup of the cards suggests to me that the fight was scored accurately apart from one, vital and glaring, error in the application of the scoring.
In the ninth round Forrest was penalised for punching low, the scorecards show that the deductions column has the point subtraction included yet the round was still scored 10-9 for Forrest. Now, the deduction comes off the overall total at the fights end, however, this means that in effect that round was a drawn round with the score 9-9 and this completely contradicts the rules of the ten-point must system. Docked point or not the winner of a round should, and must, receive ten-points and the loser a differing amount.
It may seem a small quibble but the repercussions on Ike have been huge. Consider, at best if the judges felt Forrest won the round the round should be a drawn round, only it cannot be drawn at 9-9 so it must a be a 10-10 round, even though a point has been taken away! This would have the same effect only it would illustrate that being penalised for infringement of the rules did not have a real punishing effect on Forrest as he still drew the round. Does this seem fair? No. Yet what are we to do? We are bound by the rules of scoring; they, the judges, saw Forrest as the winner of the round and scored accordingly then placed the minus point in the deduction column. In doing this the ten-point must rules have been broken, as the round is usually a 9-9 round.
Think about it. Ten-point must means that a round must have a winner who earns ten points, if the round it drawn it is a 10-10 round. A 9-9 round is a surreal mockery, are we saying both guys lost the round? Is this tolerable?
It is my belief that the rules for point deductions are flawed and do not give a big enough advantage to the injured party. In this case Forrest broke the rules and should be penalised a point and hence the round. So what should the judges have done?
Well, if one guy (Forrest) is winning a round then loses a point you could give the round 10-9 knowing that the point will come off and make it 9-9 but this not only breaks the ten-point must rule it is also unfair on the fighter who has been fouled. If a 10 score means you have won the round and a fighter who fouls is DOCKED a point then his card should involuntarily read 9 when the deduction comes into play. In this way you are ensuring that the fighter is punished and a punishment worth its name is imposed.
So what are we to do to enforce this when a guy wins a round yet loses a point for fouling? One solution is advising judges that if one guy wins a round only to have the round taken from him due to a point deduction the round should be made a 10-10 round on the official card with the point deduction being placed in the deductions column. This will mean that when the card’s are tallied the offending party will be deducted a point from the round in question and in effect lose it 10-9. Therefore we can truly say he has been justly punished for his infraction of the rules, rules he is bound by and to. Only in this way is the point deduction a real punishment.
In our practical case Quartey received no benefit from the punishment imposed on Forrest. The reality is that the round went down as a drawn round in the end with both fighters getting the equivalent of 9 points, again, and I hate to be a pedant, why have rules if they are not to be applied, you cannot give a 9-9 round even with deductions, it makes no sense whatsoever.
It also means that the playing field is level for this round despite a clear signal from the real man in charge, the referee, that in his mind one guy should lose the round and forfeit a point. He should be handicapped for his transgression.
To clarify let us look at the criteria for the ten-point must system:
‘1. Each judge of a boxing contest or exhibition that is being judged shall score the contest or exhibition and determine the winner through the use of the following system:
(a) The better boxer of a round receives 10 points and his opponent proportionately less.
(b) If the round is even, each boxer receives 10 points.
(c) No fraction of points may be given.
(d) Points for each round must be awarded immediately after the end of the period of unarmed combat in the round.’
Let us also consider the application:
‘In the 10 Point Must System, the winner of a round must receive 10 points. The loser is awarded from 9 to as few as 6 points in a round, although a 10 - 6 round rarely occurs. 10 points are awarded to the fighter who wins the round based upon clean punching, affective aggressiveness, ring generalship, defense, and, of course, by scoring the highest quality and quantity of blows. Points are also deducted from a fighter if he is knocked down in a round or penalised.’
It seems that if we are to keep the ten-point must system pure we should ensure that fighters who break the rules lose a point and, barring knockdowns, the round is scored 10-10 to ensure that when the deduction is taken the offending fighter drops to 10-9. Otherwise the punishment is not very punishing is it. You could dominate a round against someone you do not like and decide to tee-off on his testicles safe in the knowledge you are dominating the round and will only receive a drawn round. Let’s see boxers start losing rounds and see how they respond when given the final warning.
So to recap. The wrong way, in my opinion, to score this sample (one guy ‘wins’ the round, the other guy is fouled) round is the following way. The round is given 10-9 for Forrest, the deduction comes off the final tally and the round is a drawn round at 9-9. This makes a mockery of scoring as a science and its rules. The infringing party is not given a stiff punishment at all.
I feel that the right way to score a round like this is to put it down as a 10-10 round, if the offending fighter wins the round, so that when the point is deducted the perpetrator of the foul loses the round and it makes a real impression on his score rather than being a drawn, and pretty useless, round and consequently an empty punishment.
Would it make a big effect? Am I being picky and pedantic? Would it be hard for judges to apply this?
Yes, no and no! I am not being picky; the ten-point must system means 9-9 rounds (even due to deductions) must never happen. It would not be hard for judges to apply this as in doing so they are faithfully applying the rules of the ten-point must system in a way that incorporates real punishments for fouls. Finally, does it make a difference?
Well if the drawn round in question, 9-9 or 10-10 regardless, was scored accurately, as I see it, Forrest would have lost the round in the final scoring 10-9 due to his fouling. On the overall cards Ike would gain the point he deserved from his being the victim of a foul and Forrest would have been justly punished. Two cards of 95-95 would have been returned and we may have had a slightly, going by fan reaction, fairer result in this fight.
Judging is highly subjective in its application. Still, there are rules behind its theory. Maybe if we start applying the rules better, beginning with point deductions, we might see some uniform scoring. My own opinion is that our judges do a fine job, often, as in this case, they return fairly uniform cards. We just need to twiddle a few knobs and tweak the application and understanding of the ten-point must system.