giving 10-8 rounds without a knockdown/point deduction

[.:: JSFD26 ::.]

i think 10-8 rounds are appropriate if a fighter is CLEARLY hurt and is having a hard time recovering.... especially the cases where they are basically a zombie relying on the ropes to stay up & galloping around the ring like a newborn giraffe.

bottom line, if u get put on ***** street bobbling around looking crazy, thats a 10-8 round. LOL

WTF? Nice analogies...


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[Tom Cruise]

I totally disagree. If you can stop a fight with a guy on his feet then you should definitely be able to get a 10-8 round. The person not going down may be the worst thing. Its like sometimes guys take knees on purpose. Cotto was taking knees against Margartio because he was actually getting hurt more by having to fight him on his feet.

But Cotto did take knees so that makes it irrelevant tbh... Also say a guy gets battered around the ring hard enough to lose a 10-8 round, then gets kd'd at the end of the round. Does that equal a 10-7 round? Losing one point for losing the round, one point for getting smashed and then another for the kd?

Stopping a guy on his feet is about the fighters safety. Whether you give a 10-8 or a 10-9 round it wont affect the fighters health because they are carrying on regardless.

My other issue is with the subjectivity of it, it only increases confusion for fans and judges. If they are going to have the rule then there should real tangible guidelines to follow. I realise rounds have to scored subjectively (otherwise you end up with Olympic style scoring) but that doesnt mean that wherever possible there should be proper objective rules in place.

In a round like round 1 of Bradley Provodnikov (pretending it wasnt a kd) where the round wasnt that one sided but Bradley was majorly rocked towards the end, is that a 10-8? I forget which round but the round where Prov only landed 2 punches and Bradley outlanded him massively is that a 10-8 even if he didnt hurt Prov?

[Danny Gunz]

Can someone please explain to me the rules on this and the reasoning for it? I understand the concept but am just wondering if there are specific things we should be looking out for

Personally i don't like them. If you stay on your feet in the face of an onslaught you deserve to keep the extra point Imo. Equally if you fail to knock a guy down when he is hurt then you shouldn't be awarded the extra point. Just my opinion but i want my scoring to reflect the rules as closely as possible...

If someone gets pummelled for a round I think it should be worth more than a basic round where one boxer is more effective. There needs to be some incentive to up the tempo and aggression rather than playing it safe and just winning the round.

[Tom Cruise]

i think 10-8 rounds are appropriate if a fighter is CLEARLY hurt and is having a hard time recovering.... especially the cases where they are basically a zombie relying on the ropes to stay up & galloping around the ring like a newborn giraffe.

bottom line, if u get put on ***** street bobbling around looking crazy, thats a 10-8 round. LOL

So then there is no benefit to staying on your feet and fighting through adversity then? Might as well take a knee... Bottom line for me is if your not hurt enough that you go down then you dont deserve to be punished as if you have, neither does the other guy get the rewards if they arent hitting you hard enough or often enough to put you over.

[Tom Cruise]

If someone gets pummelled for a round I think it should be worth more than a basic round where one boxer is more effective. There needs to be some incentive to up the tempo and aggression rather than playing it safe and just winning the round.

There is a reward for hurting your opponent... you are hurting them after all.

What if i clearly win a round but not clear enough to get a 10-8, then my opponent just edges the next round. Both those have different winning margins as well but it is ok for boxing fans that they are scored the same?

[JOM'S]

although I like the concept it is very subjective, I seen a lot of rounds that myself score it 10-8, but see that the judges does not always agree with me...

[White_Knight]

Maybe they should score knock downs 10-7, rounds where a fighter is staggered 10-8, and rounds where a fighter merely wins 10-9. This would mean a fighter that was knocked down in 3 seperate rounds would have to win the other 9 just to get a draw, though.

[-PBP-]

If someone gets pummelled for a round I think it should be worth more than a basic round where one boxer is more effective. There needs to be some incentive to up the tempo and aggression rather than playing it safe and just winning the round.

How about an incentive to show toughness, fight back and stay on your feet to avoid losing a point?

[mathed]

So what about when a guy gets outlanded 50-1 and lands 0% of his shots in a round and potshotted for the full 3 minutes? Why is that only a 10-9 round when the round was not even remotely close?

[-PBP-]

Maybe they should score knock downs 10-7, rounds where a fighter is staggered 10-8, and rounds where a fighter merely wins 10-9. This would mean a fighter that was knocked down in 3 seperate rounds would have to win the other 9 just to get a draw, though.

Marquez would have had no chance to come back against Pacquiao in their first fight under that scoring system. Round 1 would have been scored 10-3. LOL

He would have been 7 points in the hole going into round 2. What's the point of even continuing to fight?