If you’ve watched a fight in the past 50 years, you’ve heard it announced: “All three judges score the bout 115–113…”
Those numbers, so familiar they’re practically part of boxing’s DNA, come from the 10-Point must system — the method that defines modern professional scoring. But where did it come from? And why 10 points? To understand that, you have to go back to when judging was simpler, rougher, and far more subjective.
When the referee was the only judge
For much of boxing’s early history, there were no ringside judges at all. The referee alone decided who won the fight. He was part cop, part mediator, and part arbiter, something that made sense in an era when most bouts ended in knockouts.
But when fights went the distance, chaos followed. Referees had to make a single, sweeping decision with a winner or loser without a structured scoring system. Fans and managers cried “foul”; newspapers split their verdicts, and hometown bias was rampant.
By the 1910s and 1920s, as the sport professionalized and money poured in, commissions began experimenting with systems to bring some order to the chaos.
The rounds-won era
The first serious attempt at structure was the rounds-won system, used widely in the 1920s and 1930s. Under this model, each round was treated like a miniature contest – the fighter who performed better in that round was awarded the round, and whoever won the most rounds overall won the fight.
A 10-round fight, for example, might end with one boxer taking six rounds, and the other taking four. The scores would be announced as “six rounds to four”, rather than numerically.
How it worked
Judges (and often the referee) marked a tally each round for the fighter they thought won. “Even” rounds were common when the action was too close to call. At the end of the bout, the fighter with the most rounds won took the decision.
The logic behind it
The rounds-won system appealed to regulators because it was simple and mimicked baseball’s “inning-by-inning” logic – whoever wins the most segments wins the game. It also mirrored the common-sense idea that a fighter who wins six rounds out of 10 should win the fight, even if he got hurt late.
Strengths
Clarity – fans could understand it instantly.
Fairness over the long haul – it rewarded consistent control rather than late rallies.
Ease of training – judges didn’t need to learn point arithmetic.
Weaknesses
No degree of dominance – a fighter who barely edged a round got the same credit as one who dominated it.
Too many “even” rounds – judges often called close rounds even, leading to drawn fights that satisfied no one.
No cumulative punishment – a fighter could lose six rounds narrowly but win four by huge margins and still lose the fight.
By the 1930s, reformers wanted something that would quantify dominance without overwhelming judges with math. The answer came from New York.
The five-point must system
Before the 10-point era, the five-point must system was implemented in the 1940s. It governed hundreds of world-title bouts and set the foundation for what followed.
How it worked
Each round began with both fighters theoretically even at five points. The winner of the round must receive five points; the loser received fewer, depending on how decisively he lost. A close round was scored 5-4 . A clear round was scored 5-3 or 5-2 . A near-knockout was scored 5-1 . Fouls directed by the referee resulted in a further point deduction.
The logic behind it
The Five-Point system kept the round-by-round accountability of “Rounds Won” but introduced degrees of margin. Judges could express whether a round was close or dominant – something the earlier system couldn’t handle.
Strengths
It required decisiveness. The “must” rule forced judges to pick a winner each round.
It added nuance. A 5–4 wasn’t the same as a 5–2.
It controlled subjectivity. A small, five-step scale kept scores tidy and limited wide discrepancies.
Weaknesses
It was too compressed. Judges couldn’t show subtle differences between rounds.
It provided unintuitive totals. Scores like 48–45 confused fans and promoters.
It lacked national consistency. Other commissions used different methods.
The optics for television. Broadcasters found the numbers awkward to explain on air.
The transition towards 10
By the 1960s, several commissions—including Nevada’s—were testing a 10-point must model that simply doubled the five-point range. Judges now had ten integers instead of five, giving finer gradation, and totals like 115–113 looked cleaner and more intuitive. When the World Boxing Council (WBC) formally endorsed the 10-Point system in 1968, the five-point approach quickly faded, though its DNA lives on every time a 10–9 round is read aloud.
The birth of the 10-point must system
The modern system took shape in the United States in the mid-20th century. The Nevada State Athletic Commission is widely credited with first experimenting with a 10-point variant as early as the 1940s, when seeking a more flexible and transparent scale. Two decades later, the WBC formally adopted and promoted it worldwide, cementing it as boxing’s universal standard.
The goals were clear
Consistency. Each round starts at 10; the winner must receive 10, the loser less.
Clarity. Totals like 115–113 convey competitiveness at a glance.
Flexibility. Knockdowns or dominance can widen the spread to 10–8, 10–7, or beyond.
Why 10?
Ten wasn’t mystical—it was practical. Five points didn’t offer enough distinction; 20 was too cumbersome. Ten hit the sweet spot – it was simple, scaleable, and easy for fighters, fans, and judges to grasp.
The “must” in the system
That single word – must – was revolutionary. One fighter must receive 10 points, except in a rare 10-10 round. The intention was to end indecision – every round had to have a winner. It forced accountability and gave the sport a consistent rhythm of judgment.
Why are there so many 10-9 rounds?
Though the system allows 10–8, 10–7, or 10–6, most rounds are scored 10–9.
For competitiveness – few rounds are dominant enough to justify two-point margins.
For training discipline – commissions encourage restraint and the reservation of 10–8 rounds for clear control or knockdowns.
Because of human psychology – judges avoid “over-punishing” for brief lapses.
The result – fights cluster around 115–113 or 116–112, showing close competition more than one-sided beatings.
Alternatives and adjustments
Experiments have come and gone – half-points (10–9.5), open scoring, and computerized tallies – but none replaced the 10-point must system. Recent reforms from the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) urge judges to use 10–8 rounds without knockdowns when dominance is obvious. It’s a sensible evolution that stays true to the system’s spirit.
The system’s strength – and its flaw
Its strength is its universality – a 10–8 round means the same in New York, Tokyo, or Las Vegas. Its flaw is human – its interpretation will always vary.
For all its imperfections, the 10-point must system remains the sport’s best balance between structure and subjectivity. It compels decisiveness while preserving the artistry of judgment – a fitting reflection of boxing itself.
