Scoring rounds on pity has to stop NOW

[tito yuca]

This is seriously pissing me off. Judges are supposed to be fair and balanced. We've seen this happen time and time again - One judge today gave Arreola one round, Lederman did, and also some posters have said they gave him the 8th. Listen, I know he did BETTER in that round than in the rest, but he still lost it. You don't get a round in a fight you're being dominated in just by doing slighty better than in the other rounds. You're supposed to WIN IT.

One judge gave Marquez two rounds and another gave him one last week.
One judge gave Baldomir two vs. Floyd
Two judges gave Tito a round vs. Winky

This is beyond ******. You can't get rounds just by being dominted less than you did in the previous one!

[MIP4P1]

This is seriously pissing me off. Judges are supposed to be fair and balanced. We've seen this happen time and time again - One judge today gave Arreola one round, Lederman did, and also some posters have said they gave him the 8th. Listen, I know he did BETTER in that round than in the rest, but he still lost it. You don't get a round in a fight you're being dominated in just by doing slighty better than in the other rounds. You're supposed to WIN IT.

One judge gave Marquez two rounds and another gave him one last week.
One judge gave Baldomir two vs. Floyd
Two judges gave Tito a round vs. Winky

This is beyond ******. You can't get rounds just by being dominted less than you did in the previous one!

Fear of being called biased or corrupt.

[Easy-E]

I call it the Roy Jones rule.
Its not that a fighter won a particular round, but they looked better in that round then they didn in previous rounds against that fighter, or did better in that round that other fighters have done in previous fights.

[Fulcrum29]

This is seriously pissing me off. Judges are supposed to be fair and balanced. We've seen this happen time and time again - One judge today gave Arreola one round, Lederman did, and also some posters have said they gave him the 8th. Listen, I know he did BETTER in that round than in the rest, but he still lost it. You don't get a round in a fight you're being dominated in just by doing slighty better than in the other rounds. You're supposed to WIN IT.

One judge gave Marquez two rounds and another gave him one last week.
One judge gave Baldomir two vs. Floyd
Two judges gave Tito a round vs. Winky

This is beyond ******. You can't get rounds just by being dominted less than you did in the previous one!

Yup very true what my boy below you said..it's fear of being called biased they try to throw one in there. It's pathetic but oh well..what can you do.

[MANGLER]

I agree it's ******. But tbh, in those fights those 1 or 2 'mercy' rds given to a guy gettin whomped never mean **** anyway.

[tito yuca]

I call it the Roy Jones rule.
Its not that a fighter won a particular round, but they looked better in that round then they didn in previous rounds against that fighter, or did better in that round that other fighters have done in previous fights.

That's exactly what it is, and it's wrong. You're supposed to WIN rounds.

[Spray_resistant]

This is seriously pissing me off. Judges are supposed to be fair and balanced. We've seen this happen time and time again - One judge today gave Arreola one round, Lederman did, and also some posters have said they gave him the 8th. Listen, I know he did BETTER in that round than in the rest, but he still lost it. You don't get a round in a fight you're being dominated in just by doing slighty better than in the other rounds. You're supposed to WIN IT.

One judge gave Marquez two rounds and another gave him one last week.
One judge gave Baldomir two vs. Floyd
Two judges gave Tito a round vs. Winky

This is beyond ******. You can't get rounds just by being dominted less than you did in the previous one!

Your right, you have to win that round not just do a little better. Each round is scored independently as if it were its own fight. You can't win a fight just because you were dominated less in a previous fight as opposed the one a fighter is currently in. I had the Floyd/JMM fight a shut out and I had the Arreola/Vitali fight a shut out as well.

[tito yuca]

I agree it's ******. But tbh, in those fights those 1 or 2 'mercy' rds given to a guy gettin whomped never mean **** anyway.

I know it doesn't mean anything in that fight, but it worries me that judges do this. The reason I say this is because there are many close fights that require very careful observation, and if guys who give rounds on pity are judging them, a bad decision in the end becomes a stronger possibilty.

[Easy-E]

That's exactly what it is, and it's wrong. You're supposed to WIN rounds.

enjoy the refreshing green.

[tito yuca]

Your right, you have to win that round not just do a little better. Each round is scored independently as if it were its own fight. You can't win a fight just because you were dominated less in a previous fight as opposed the one a fighter is currently in. I had the Floyd/JMM fight a shut out and I had the Arreola/Vitali fight a shut out as well.

I agree completely. In fact, that's exactly what I think about when I see this happen. I ask myself "if every round went exactly like that one, would they score it a shutout for the other guy"? During the replay of the Floyd-JMM we saw 2 judges give JMM round 8. If you erase everything before that, does JMM still look worthy of receiving that round? The answer of course, is no.

I've also thought what some people here said, that they do it so they won't appear biased. However, I think this erroneous judgement makes them appear biased in favor of the losing fighter. It gives the impression that you want him to only do so much to win, and that "so much" is less than the other guy. It's kinda contradictory, because their intention would be the complete opposite of that, but if you give a round to a guy who appeared to lose it, you seem biased in his favor.