Scoring even rounds?

[mECHsLAVE]

As a general rule, I rarely ever score even rounds, as long as there are landed punches. You do see rounds occasionally, especially early rounds, where both fighters are so nervous and unwilling to engage that you don't see a single punch even land. That would be an even round, sure.

But my thoughts on even rounds are... no round with any significant action is dead even. It's your job, judging the round, to seek out the fighter who earned that extra point, even if it was just by one extra punch.

Many judges score even rounds consistently, and I see it as laziness, really. Merchant does it nearly every damn fight, and especially when he's in his cups and becomes disinterested in the fight with low action.

That's how I look at scoring even rounds. Rarely should it be done, far more rarely than it is.

[K-DOGG]

I know this is frowned upon in Vegas, but I sometimes do this on my own cards for time if I can't decide which boxer edged a round and don't wish to unfairly balance it in one direction. I can always go back later and rewatch the round to make a more decisive judgement later.

I usually score even rounds in situations where there's little being done by either fighter. If, for example, one's pressing forward but not landing anything, and the other's backing up but blocking, and both score about six shots each of equal force, I'll just mark it 10 10. If neither has done anything to really outclass their opponent, then why do they deserve to be ahead by a point for the session, you know what I mean?

It's not something I do frequently, but it's something I do in close sessions where neither man did anything to "lose" the round.


Thoughts? (No flaming - adult discussion only, please)

Under the current guidelines, that's acceptable...I do the same thing.

But; here's a thought. Most fights are conducted under a 10-Point Must System now days, correct? Why the hell don't we use more of the points?

I mean if one guy obviously wins a round, the score is 10-9; but if two guys box nip and tuck for 3:00 minutes and you feel one edged out the other, the score is still 10-9 for the winner.

We've got 10 whole points to play with, yet unless somebody gets knocked down or beat all to hell, we score the round 10-9. How freakin' lame is that?!

Why not score a decisive winner 10-8 or 10-7......if one guy nearly gets KTFO or beat from pillar to post, make it 10-5, and only if a round is razor thin make it 10-9?


Just a thought, guys? Why the hell do we let all of those points go to waste?

[Kid Achilles]

Another argument for a 10-10 round is that why should fighter A get the same score (10-9) over fighter B when he just barely edged him out as fighter B gets over fighter A (another 10-9) for completely outclassing him and doing anything but drop or hurt him badly in the next round. 10-9 reflects that one fighter was clearly superior to the other that round, not that he got a few more pawing ineffectual punches in than the opponent.

Also as I said before, the closer the round, the more biased your scoring will be. 10-10 for a close round erases the bias. I feel that a fighter should have to prove his superiority in a round to deserve 10-9.

K-Dogg I think the reason the rounds are capped at 10-7 is that it would put the fighter who takes a bad beating in one round at too much of a point deficit from just one round. I don't think a round should be scored beneath 10-7 for this reason. It gets to the point where it's impossible to catch up if you have a guy winning 10-6, 10-5, or 10-4, so why not just quit anyway? I don't think any single round should be able to have that much weight no matter how badly a fighter is beaten in it (assuming he isn't knocked out and stopped, in which case he's at a pretty severe deficit in the scoring anyway!)

I do think that perhaps an even round could be scored 9-9 instead of 10-10.

I am actually strongly in favor with 10-10 rounds and I'd like to see more judges give them out, rather than pick at random in a close round which seems to often be the case.

[K-DOGG]

Another argument for a 10-10 round is that why should fighter A get the same score (10-9) over fighter B when he just barely edged him out as fighter B gets over fighter A (another 10-9) for completely outclassing him and doing anything but drop or hurt him badly in the next round. 10-9 reflects that one fighter was clearly superior to the other that round, not that he got a few more pawing ineffectual punches in than the opponent.

Also as I said before, the closer the round, the more biased your scoring will be. 10-10 for a close round erases the bias. I feel that a fighter should have to prove his superiority in a round to deserve 10-9.

K-Dogg I think the reason the rounds are capped at 10-7 is that it would put the fighter who takes a bad beating in one round at too much of a point deficit from just one round. I don't think a round should be scored beneath 10-7 for this reason. It gets to the point where it's impossible to catch up if you have a guy winning 10-6, 10-5, or 10-4, so why not just quit anyway? I don't think any single round should be able to have that much weight no matter how badly a fighter is beaten in it (assuming he isn't knocked out and stopped, in which case he's at a pretty severe deficit in the scoring anyway!)

I do think that perhaps an even round could be scored 9-9 instead of 10-10.

I am actually strongly in favor with 10-10 rounds and I'd like to see more judges give them out, rather than pick at random in a close round which seems to often be the case.

Fair enough. I'm not certain if I agree to be quite honest; but I do see your point.

[Mr. David]

Fair enough. I'm not certain if I agree to be quite honest; but I do see your point.

I have to agree with Kid Achilles. Say, for example, you and I are in a fight, K-DOGG. No, really, say it.

Okay then.

Now it's the first round, and like Manny Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez, you clobber me around the ring, knocking me down three times, breaking my nose and telling me I look like an overweight Paula Abdul. Now that's the kind of whupping that, under your system, would merit something like a 10-4 or 10-3 (points for the knockdowns as well as for the Laker Girl crack). But I rally back, winning the next seven or eight rounds (though only with a 10-9 edge). Don't my seven or eight rounds merit better than a one point lead for your one round of fun?

Points should be taken for losing a round, knockdowns and fouls. It's less complicated, and honestly, less subjective when you don't have to decide how many extra points that round was worth.

Now stop calling me an overweight Paula Abdul.

[Mr. Ryan]

I have to agree with Kid Achilles. Say, for example, you and I are in a fight, K-DOGG. No, really, say it.

Okay then.

Now it's the first round, and like Manny Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez, you clobber me around the ring, knocking me down three times, breaking my nose and telling me I look like an overweight Paula Abdul. Now that's the kind of whupping that, under your system, would merit something like a 10-4 or 10-3 (points for the knockdowns as well as for the Laker Girl crack). But I rally back, winning the next seven or eight rounds (though only with a 10-9 edge). Don't my seven or eight rounds merit better than a one point lead for your one round of fun?

Points should be taken for losing a round, knockdowns and fouls. It's less complicated, and honestly, less subjective when you don't have to decide how many extra points that round was worth.

Now stop calling me an overweight Paula Abdul.

I agree there, scoring rounds is simple but people make it harder on themselves. 10-9 for a regular round in which a guy has the edge, 10-8 if he hammers his ass From Pillar to Post like my column 10-8 for a knockdown, 10-7 for two, and 10-6 for three. If there are more than 3 knockdowns in a round, which any referee with a bit of humanity would stop, is 10-5. Point deductions should be administered according to refs discretion. If everyone followed these principles, they would always have the right guy winning.

[K-DOGG]

I have to agree with Kid Achilles. Say, for example, you and I are in a fight, K-DOGG. No, really, say it.

Okay then.

Now it's the first round, and like Manny Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez, you clobber me around the ring, knocking me down three times, breaking my nose and telling me I look like an overweight Paula Abdul. Now that's the kind of whupping that, under your system, would merit something like a 10-4 or 10-3 (points for the knockdowns as well as for the Laker Girl crack). But I rally back, winning the next seven or eight rounds (though only with a 10-9 edge). Don't my seven or eight rounds merit better than a one point lead for your one round of fun?

Points should be taken for losing a round, knockdowns and fouls. It's less complicated, and honestly, less subjective when you don't have to decide how many extra points that round was worth.

Now stop calling me an overweight Paula Abdul.

Okay Paula, say I do knock you down like 3 times in round one...really ***** slap you around, I'd say that's a 10-5 round, maybe 10-4, kay?

Then you slowly begin to work your way back into the fight, first edging me out in Round 2...10-9, then you start getting your confidence back and start spreading the distance between us winning each round obviously, which would mean you won rond 3 by a margin of 10-8 and get a 10-7 round when you split open my eyebrow, had me blinded and made me look like a wino stagering in a Chicago wind.


K-DOGG vs Fat Paula

1. 10-4
2. 9-10
3. 8-10
4. 8-10
5. 7-10
6. 10-8....you took a breather from spanking me
7. 8-10
8. 7-10
9. 6-10....cut me pretty good and nearly had me out
10. 10-9...I rally back 'cause I got heart, damn it.
11. 9-10
12. 8-10....really gave me a good boxing lesson in the final round.



Final Tally: K-Dogg 100 vs Paula 111

...you still won....see what I mean? It's fair. Odds are judges would feel compelled to score an obvious round 10-8 at least, and who knows what'll happen in a match?

[Mr. David]

Okay Paula, say I do knock you down like 3 times in round one...really ***** slap you around, I'd say that's a 10-5 round, maybe 10-4, kay?

Then you slowly begin to work your way back into the fight, first edging me out in Round 2...10-9, then you start getting your confidence back and start spreading the distance between us winning each round obviously, which would mean you won rond 3 by a margin of 10-8 and get a 10-7 round when you split open my eyebrow, had me blinded and made me look like a wino stagering in a Chicago wind.


K-DOGG vs Fat Paula

1. 10-4
2. 9-10
3. 8-10
4. 8-10
5. 7-10
6. 10-8....you took a breather from spanking me
7. 8-10
8. 7-10
9. 6-10....cut me pretty good and nearly had me out
10. 10-9...I rally back 'cause I got heart, damn it.
11. 9-10
12. 8-10....really gave me a good boxing lesson in the final round.



Final Tally: K-Dogg 100 vs Paula 111

...you still won....see what I mean? It's fair. Odds are judges would feel compelled to score an obvious round 10-8 at least, and who knows what'll happen in a match?

But the ish is that it gets too subjective. How do you define exactly what a 10-5 round is in comparison to a 10-4? If you're a state or national athletic commission, how do you maintain uniformity and honesty? No matter how or how many times I, Fat Paula, come out the victor, it just makes things as unnecessary as an Avril Lavigne song.

[K-DOGG]

But the ish is that it gets too subjective. How do you define exactly what a 10-5 round is in comparison to a 10-4? If you're a state or national athletic commission, how do you maintain uniformity and honesty? No matter how or how many times I, Fat Paula, come out the victor, it just makes things as unnecessary as an Avril Lavigne song.

lol!! Okay, set the limit at 10-5, if it makes you, Simon, and Reggie happy. You've got consistancy and subjective interpretation.

[Kid Achilles]

10-6!!!!

Seriously though, how is one to rate just how bad an asskicking it is? Do you factor in cuts, how many times the guy is decked, how shakey is legs are as he rises, how clear his eyes look, etc. etc.?