3 knockdowns in 1 round

AFAIK the guideline is it's a point a KD period. Potentially harsh well no imo, why should consecutive KD's count less and less each time, it's representing by how far your winning, and a KD is an achievement in boxing that needs merit/reward. Otherwise a boxer would get a KD, think there's no point going for another or a KO because you may as-well just score KD's in other rounds. Doesn't matter when a KD's occurred, KD's a KD. Saying that it wouldn't surprise me if a couple of org's have slightly differently guidelines, and in any case the judges have too much power to mis-score. If it's a mis score, override it. I could easily make an argument for why 3 knockdowns in a row should not hold the same weight as 3 separate knockdowns. Because the consecutive knockdowns you're still under the spell of the first knockdown and not fully recovered and as such they are not "achievements" in the similar vein to the 1st knockdown. Do you see what I'm saying?

Because a few rounds that went to Pacquiao should have gone to Marquez... I agree, I scored the fight with a 10-6 first round, and still had Marquez winning by something like 2 points. Scored the second fight for Marquez by 1 point. Not complaining though, they were both close enough that they could have gone either way. As someone stated before, it's up to the judge and how they saw it wether they wanted to score it 10-6 or 10-7. wether it's a rule or not is not an issue because sometimes judges see fights going in ways no one on earth would agree with, so at least mistakes aside, these guys were actually doing their job.

Completely irrelevant seeing as to how the judge who scored it 10-7 ADMITTED that he should have scored it 10-6. Thats basically an admission that pac won why didnt jmm complain about that i wonder? :thinking: Because a few rounds that went to Pacquiao should have gone to Marquez...

It doesn't put the round "out of reach" it just means that he'll have to try harder, may e score a KO. How many thousands of times have trainers told their fighters that "you have to score a KO to win now". Yes, but implicit in the statement "you HAVE to score a KO to win" means the fight cannot be won on the cards.

Completely irrelevant seeing as to how the judge who scored it 10-7 ADMITTED that he should have scored it 10-6. Thats basically an admission that pac won why didnt jmm complain about that i wonder? :thinking:

Really it's up to the judges a lot of times, there is nothing really "official" about the scoring besides the fact that the winner of the round must receive 10 points. Often judges will score a round with 1 KD a 10-9 round because the fighter of the round did enough in the round to make up the point. This is the main reason I score the first round in Pacquiao Marquez 10-7 every time, Marquez easily won the first 90 seconds of the round and in my opinion I think he deserves the 1 extra point. In a nut shell it's completely up to the judges, same way with scoring a round 10-8 when no KD happened. The 10 point must system is really screwy. It's good in a way because it depends on the particular fight and the circumstances to make a sound judgement. You can't put rules to everything. Trouble is there's probably too much that's up to the judge which shouldn't be the case and is unusual in sport. Everyone involved should have a clearer idea of how the competitors are officially being rated in fight, not wondering if they've just gotten 6 or 8 points in a round they've received KD's. When you think about it, there's not many other sports where the competitors are so without idea just whose won or by how much at any given moment. As for getting KD and doing enough to make up the point. Well what that really means is aside from the KD they'd have won the round 10-9. For it to jump to 10-8 against them is too big a swing. So 10-9 is right in that instance. To win a round 10-8 you have to have won the round, and gotten the KD.

Well, it can get a little murky when there are that many knockdowns in a round - and what Harold said about not wanting to score it 10-6 is simply his opinion as a judge and the rules allow him to make that call. There isn't anything official about having to deduct a point for every single knockdown that occurs in a round, however, most of us with experience watching loads of fights know that when a fighter wins the round AND scores a knockdown it will be scored 10-8. Dominate the round and score two knockdowns and it's typically scored 10-7. Beyond this, as I understand, is up to the judge. In the 10 point must system, the loser of the round can receive between 9 and 6. In Harold's case, I'd assume he felt that scoring it 10-6 would be "unfair" because it essentially puts the entire fight out of reach based on just one round. In that fight, he may have felt that the knockdowns in the round were of the "flash" variety and that Corrales wasn't necessarily that hurt every single time Floyd put him down. This is where the decision making of being a judge comes in to play - it's the same logic that applies to scoring rounds 10-8 when there is NO knockdown at all - when a fighter totally dominates the round and HURTS the opponent so bad it could be scored 10-8 to some judges. Again, this is up to the individual judge and the other two may not agree on scoring it 10-8 unless there is a knockdown. In Pacquiao-JMM 1, only one of the judges scored the first round 10-7 later stating he made a mistake. There is really no way to know if the judge made a decision on his own to score it 10-7 like Lederman did in the Floyd/Corrales fight or if he really did make a mistake. While scoring it LIVE, that judge may have felt that the first knockdown was just a "flash" and not as devastating as the two that followed, who knows. Forget what he said after the fight - he may have only admitted to the mistake afterward because he knew he was offline with the other two and it became somewhat of a controversy. Either way, scoring it 10-7 or 10-6 was within the rules and involved the individual making a judgment call. There's nothing in rules saying you have to deduct a point for every knockdown, but most probably do and would have. It doesn't put the round "out of reach" it just means that he'll have to try harder, may e score a KO. How many thousands of times have trainers told their fighters that "you have to score a KO to win now".

Thats stupid because one fighters strength is maybe him relying on knocking down the opponent and losing rounds, would they have a rule saying a boxer cant lose 3 rounds in a row...so we will score the 3rd evenly...no... It has to be fair for every1

Really it's up to the judges a lot of times, there is nothing really "official" about the scoring besides the fact that the winner of the round must receive 10 points. Often judges will score a round with 1 KD a 10-9 round because the fighter of the round did enough in the round to make up the point. This is the main reason I score the first round in Pacquiao Marquez 10-7 every time, Marquez easily won the first 90 seconds of the round and in my opinion I think he deserves the 1 extra point. In a nut shell it's completely up to the judges, same way with scoring a round 10-8 when no KD happened. The 10 point must system is really screwy.

It's true some judges don't go below a 10-7 round because it makes a big disadvantage for the other fighter and it's hard for him to come back up.if that's how some judges rule.. I would take a knee every 10 sec if I need to take a breather after suffering 2 KD's..better than hugging and clinching where you possibly can get tagged :D Better to score a KO than KD IMO:boxing:

Well, it can get a little murky when there are that many knockdowns in a round - and what Harold said about not wanting to score it 10-6 is simply his opinion as a judge and the rules allow him to make that call. There isn't anything official about having to deduct a point for every single knockdown that occurs in a round, however, most of us with experience watching loads of fights know that when a fighter wins the round AND scores a knockdown it will be scored 10-8. Dominate the round and score two knockdowns and it's typically scored 10-7. Beyond this, as I understand, is up to the judge. In the 10 point must system, the loser of the round can receive between 9 and 6. In Harold's case, I'd assume he felt that scoring it 10-6 would be "unfair" because it essentially puts the entire fight out of reach based on just one round. In that fight, he may have felt that the knockdowns in the round were of the "flash" variety and that Corrales wasn't necessarily that hurt every single time Floyd put him down. This is where the decision making of being a judge comes in to play - it's the same logic that applies to scoring rounds 10-8 when there is NO knockdown at all - when a fighter totally dominates the round and HURTS the opponent so bad it could be scored 10-8 to some judges. Again, this is up to the individual judge and the other two may not agree on scoring it 10-8 unless there is a knockdown. In Pacquiao-JMM 1, only one of the judges scored the first round 10-7 later stating he made a mistake. There is really no way to know if the judge made a decision on his own to score it 10-7 like Lederman did in the Floyd/Corrales fight or if he really did make a mistake. While scoring it LIVE, that judge may have felt that the first knockdown was just a "flash" and not as devastating as the two that followed, who knows. Forget what he said after the fight - he may have only admitted to the mistake afterward because he knew he was offline with the other two and it became somewhat of a controversy. Either way, scoring it 10-7 or 10-6 was within the rules and involved the individual making a judgment call. There's nothing in rules saying you have to deduct a point for every knockdown, but most probably do and would have.

It's true some judges don't go below a 10-7 round because it makes a big disadvantage for the other fighter and it's hard for him to come back up.

so if i get knockedodwn twice i can take all the knee's i want

Is there a rule that says you have to deduct one point if there is a KD? I watched the fight a long time ago and I remember Harold Lederman saying that.

there isnt one but it should be judged 10-6 if you ask me. Whats fair is fair. Who are they to care or say if a guy can catchup or not. Its almost cheating to me. Pac-JMM shouldve been 10-6 in the 1st. Not only that but you should get credit for all 3 knock downs since you arent getting credit for dominating the round if you know what I mean. I mean that in most cases, 3 knock downs would seem like a domination and in boxing, you can take away a point for a guy for dominating a round even without a knock down. If you are going to score some rounds 10-8 with no knockdowns then you better score it 10-6 if a guy gets 3. Thats my point

AFAIK the guideline is it's a point a KD period. Potentially harsh well no imo, why should consecutive KD's count less and less each time, it's representing by how far your winning, and a KD is an achievement in boxing that needs merit/reward. Otherwise a boxer would get a KD, think there's no point going for another or a KO because you may as-well just score KD's in other rounds. Doesn't matter when a KD's occurred, KD's a KD. Saying that it wouldn't surprise me if a couple of org's have slightly differently guidelines, and in any case the judges have too much power to mis-score. If it's a mis score, override it.