What score do you give to a fighter who was knocked down but won the round?

I always score it a 10-8 to the person who got the KD no matter who was winning the round. I only bring it back to a 10-9 when the person who got knocked down makes it a serious one sided round. And when I mean one sided, I'm talking about Mayweather-Gatti type round, a complete schooling. It may not be the way I should be scoring it but I haven't seen official judges score it any other way. You get a KD, you get a 10-8.

How do people not understand 10 point must? Someone has to get 10 points, unless the guy who won the round was penalized a point for a foul. It's called the "Ten Points Must" system but this is an informal name, not official. (I even remember analysts chatting about that name when it began to be used) It merely means that the winner of the round, NO MATTER HOW WELL HE WON THE ROUND, even if he knocked the opponent down 50 times, CANNOT get more than 10 POINTS.... The round winner MUST get 10 points....UNLESS he loses a point for some reason. He could commit a foul or be KD. The Rules don't differentiate between the levels of fouls (of which there are several kinds) and KDs. The rules say just that a point is lost for each one. I've seen Whitaker bending so low (below waist level) that it was a foul, and the analysts were commenting that the ref should have taken a point. I've seen other fighters doing the same, where a point was actually taken. For example, when Amir Khan lost 2 points in separate incidents for aggressive pushing, and hitting on the break, his fans kicked up murder about it, but the ref decided. The fact is...aggressive pushing like Khan did, and hitting on the break, are both against the rules, which can each result in the loss of a point, and he'd been warned several times. (I personally think that he lost the second point for pushing as well, he just happened to hit on the break at the same time which caused confusion as to the reason for that point taken). If a fighter fouls he LOSS A POINT, just as he does is he is knocked down. His opponent DOES NOT WIN A POINT........That's a rule and it isn't saying that a foul or a KD is the more effective, it's just the rule because rules have to start and stop somewhere. So to get back to the argument, a fighter who would otherwise have won the round 10-9 and is KD, thereby LOSING A POINT, that round should be scored 9-9, and often is--if the judges know their jobs properly. Anyway, I'm going to solve the problem; I have written to the Chairman of the Officials and Rules Commission (It's called something like that) and if I get a reply I will mention it on someone's thread. (I have no idea how to begin a thread myself-I'm a computer dunce.).

I think, in that case the knockdowns cancel eachother out. So you score the round as you usually would..10-9 in favour of who you thought won the round. Or 10-10 if you thought it was an even round. As it's a 10 point must win system, the winner of the round must be awarded 10 points.

How about Berto/Ortiz where they both scored a KD in the same round? Can it be 8-8??

Yes I See this point, but it is not the role of judge to determine this. If the referee has called knockdown, the judge must score it a knockdown. This role of determining slips is up to the referee. As for flash knockdown, yes...maybe the system should be changed to account for this (can of worms in my opinion though). But a knockdown is a knockdown. If all your opponent can do is outbox you for the round, it would be extremely hard to influence that judge. Hence 10-8 Yes of course it's the ref who decides the KD or not. I actually mentioned the ref but deleted it because my sentence was badly constructed. You just cannot justify a 10-8 for a fighter who has otherwise lost the round well just because his opponent lost a point for a KD. (regardless of the quality of the KD). Surely you have listened to analysts and commentators chatting together over the score of a particular round where this point has been brought up. It seems that you and i have reached an impasse where we can agree to disagree. No harm done and thank you for the interesting exchange.

Yes exactly, everyone is missing the point. The logic behind a 10-9 kd round seems to be: other fighter won the round but knockdown deducts a point. I can see that fine... BUT, its not right. If you are knocked down (no fouls, other kd's or battered opponents etc) you have lost the round... and are deducted the point for the KD hence the 10-8 score. A KD does NOT automatically mean you have lost the round. It just means that you have lost a point. You can still otherwise win the round and force a 9-9 round. I've heard this said so often during fights ".... now he'll have a tough time making up for this to force a 9-9 round...."..... from commentators etc. during fights, as well as dozens of serious discussions by analysts during and after fights. You've probably heard it yourself. Perhaps some Boxing Lord on High will speak down to us mortals and put the matter clearly. I suppose you could text Teddy Atlas, who, for all his flaws, would certainly know the rules. Or perhaps Max Kellerman. I think they are on Facebook or some such site. I don't use them.

I think you're wrong about the value of the effect of a KD. There are about 57 different kinds of effects from a KD which you are not considering. I have seen slips which unfortunately occurred just when receiving a punch, the same thing with bad balance. I've seen fighters who were carried off balance in a melee whose gloves touched the ground and lost a point because it was judged as a KD when it looked as if he'd received a punch at the same time. It can be good or bad refereeing..... I suppose you've heard of the phrase "...a flash knockdown..." Yes I See this point, but it is not the role of judge to determine this. If the referee has called knockdown, the judge must score it a knockdown. This role of determining slips is up to the referee. As for flash knockdown, yes...maybe the system should be changed to account for this (can of worms in my opinion though). But a knockdown is a knockdown. If all your opponent can do is outbox you for the round, it would be extremely hard to influence that judge. Hence 10-8

Ok but you are missing the point, if you are knocked down, how could you even consider the round being even? 10-10 is out of the window as soon as that knockdown happens .... 10-8. You could be winning 10-9, until you are knocked down. Then lose 10-8. 9-9 is illogical as it is saying a knockdown is worth the same as winning the rest of it. It's not. A knockdown is worth the same as a knockdown, or a vicious beating. You could win 99% of the round, and be knocked down. You lose 10-8. This is unless you score your own knockdown, or convince the judges that you beat up your opponent so badly it warranted a 10-8. I'm shocked by the amount of people even mentioning 9-9... I think you're wrong about the value of the effect of a KD. There are about 57 different kinds of effects from a KD which you are not considering. I have seen slips which unfortunately occurred just when receiving a punch, the same thing with bad balance. I've seen fighters who were carried off balance in a melee whose gloves touched the ground and lost a point because it was judged as a KD when it looked as if he'd received a punch at the same time. It can be good or bad refereeing..... I suppose you've heard of the phrase "...a flash knockdown..."

********The most widely used scoring system since the mid-twentieth century is the "10-point must system", so named because a judge "must" award ten points to at least one fighter each round (before deductions for fouls). Most rounds are scored 10-9, with 10 points for the fighter who won the round, and 9 points for the fighter the judge believes lost the round. If a round is judged to be even, it is scored 10-10. For each knockdown in a round, the judge deducts an additional point from the fighter knocked down, resulting in a 10-8 score if there is one knockdown or a 10-7 score if there are two knockdowns. If the referee instructs the judges to deduct a point for a foul, this deduction is applied after the preliminary computation. So, if a fighter wins a round, but is penalized for a foul, the score changes from 10-9 to 9-9. If that same fighter scored a knockdown in the round, the score would change from 10-8 in his favor to 9-8****** Yes exactly, everyone is missing the point. The logic behind a 10-9 kd round seems to be: other fighter won the round but knockdown deducts a point. I can see that fine... BUT, its not right. If you are knocked down (no fouls, other kd's or battered opponents etc) you have lost the round... and are deducted the point for the KD hence the 10-8 score.

So where are you basing this from? If you could point me towards something, like a governing body rulebook, i'd be grateful. I can see where you are coming from with this logic, however, like I posted above....how do you win a round if you were knocked down? As for the 9-9 thing, you may want to have a read up on the 10-point must system. It's peculiar, but it works You posed an interesting question. So I decided not to rely on my experience and look it up. It doesn't specify a KD but the principle of deducting a point (for a foul) is there for deducting a point from the fighter who won the round, which would make it a 9-9 round. What I found and managed to paste is at the bottom between the asterisks. I didn't look very hard because I am convinced, but I looked. My experience comes from 50 years listening to genuine experts and common sense. It's really a simple concept, and the Rule makers wouldn't have such a blatantly unfair rule to NOT deduct a point from the guy (even if he's winning the rd) who was KD. It's axiomatic; when a guy is KD he LOSES a point -the other guy doesn't gain it.. Also I've listened to literally dozens of genuine expert analysts and commentators discussing the scores and potential scores of rounds just finished, and after fight discussions of the same things and that was uniformly how they explained certain 9-9 rounds, if the otherwise round winner was KD. Fouls had the same explanation, a loss of a point The RULE MAKERS try to make the rules as equal as possible, and it would be a travesty if a guy who was getting hell for the whole rd but managed a KD in the last few secs were to be given that round. That rule wouldn't last long, boxing itself would throw it out. Only judges who don't know their business do these things, which can often explain bad decisions. ********The most widely used scoring system since the mid-twentieth century is the "10-point must system", so named because a judge "must" award ten points to at least one fighter each round (before deductions for fouls). Most rounds are scored 10-9, with 10 points for the fighter who won the round, and 9 points for the fighter the judge believes lost the round. If a round is judged to be even, it is scored 10-10. For each knockdown in a round, the judge deducts an additional point from the fighter knocked down, resulting in a 10-8 score if there is one knockdown or a 10-7 score if there are two knockdowns. If the referee instructs the judges to deduct a point for a foul, this deduction is applied after the preliminary computation. So, if a fighter wins a round, but is penalized for a foul, the score changes from 10-9 to 9-9. If that same fighter scored a knockdown in the round, the score would change from 10-8 in his favor to 9-8******

It's at the discretion of the judge and the rules. It should depend on the severity of the KD and by what margin the knocked down fighter was wining the round before/after the KD.

Wow.... a lot of scorecards you find on NSB have obviously been misjudged then... and thats even disregarding fighter bias. How a fighter gets knocked down, doesn't batter his opponent but may get the better of the other fighter, yet gets away with 9 points is beyond me. It's never been like that, I can't even think of a scorecard recently from any judge which has done that.

9-9. The fighter who gets knocked down loses a point; it's not always a 10-8 round. The last time I scored a 9-9 was the Matthysse vs Garcia fight in the round where Garcia KD's Lucas.

Knockdown is 10-8 round and only knockdown (besides point deduction) rewards 10-8 round, in my opinion. Has to reward fighter 10-9 if he manages to stay on his feet instead of taking a knee.

If some one is clearly winning the the round and ends up being kd himself it would be a 10-9 round against him instead of a 10-8 round. Not all judges will score it like that but that's how it should be scored. Prime example is Marquez Katsidis round 3. Marquez was in control before he was knocked down and was completely in control after Katsidis scored that kd. That wasnt a flash kd either it was as legit as they come but Marquez wasnt hurt and clearly would've win the round had there not been a kd. That should've been a 10-9 round for Katsidis, but I bet at least one or two judges scored it 10-8 for Katsidis. IMO most people would probably score a round with a kd 10-8 for the person that scored it most situations but that isn't always correct. Yeah, the round should turn into a 10-9.

The fighter who wins the round is entitled to get 10 points, the loser 9 (unless he's battered so badly that it becomes an 8). But if the rd winner is KD he loses a point, (the one who suffered the KD loses a point -the KDer doesn't gain a point). The result for a round winner who was KD is 9-9. (I've seen 9-8 rounds). Wrong, the winner of the round has to get 10 point unless he was deducted a point, why don't people understand that

How do people not understand 10 point must? Someone has to get 10 points, unless the guy who won the round was penalized a point for a foul.

Yeah. Has to basically be a round you might consider 10-8 the other way without a KD. Then it's 10-9 for the guy who scored the KD. Yes... thanks for giving me hope that there are people who understand this... :D

It's a bit confusing but think of it like a 10-10 round, with the guy who was knocked down losing a point for the knockdown and the round being scored 10-9 as a result. Or alternatively you can think of it as the guy who was knocked down earning a point back. Ok but you are missing the point, if you are knocked down, how could you even consider the round being even? 10-10 is out of the window as soon as that knockdown happens .... 10-8. You could be winning 10-9, until you are knocked down. Then lose 10-8. 9-9 is illogical as it is saying a knockdown is worth the same as winning the rest of it. It's not. A knockdown is worth the same as a knockdown, or a vicious beating. You could win 99% of the round, and be knocked down. You lose 10-8. This is unless you score your own knockdown, or convince the judges that you beat up your opponent so badly it warranted a 10-8. I'm shocked by the amount of people even mentioning 9-9...

Most of the time it is a 10-8 round, unless the the kd'd opponent wins the round big. Yeah. Has to basically be a round you might consider 10-8 the other way without a KD. Then it's 10-9 for the guy who scored the KD.