giving 10-8 rounds without a knockdown/point deduction

[-PBP-]

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?

Exactly. There are so many ways to tweak the scoring system. It is fine the way it is.

If you want a 10-8 round, put a guy on his ass.

If you don't want to fall behind 10-8. Stay on your damn feet and throw punches.


It's really that simple.

[Tom Cruise]

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?

Why should a round that was just edged to a fighter be scored the same a round that was clearly won (but not enough for a 10-8)?

[Tom Cruise]

Exactly. There are so many ways to tweak the scoring system. It is fine the way it is.

If you want a 10-8 round, put a guy on his ass.

If you don't want to fall behind 10-8. Stay on your damn feet and throw punches.


It's really that simple.

thats the way i see it.

[Danny Gunz]

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

So a fighter should be given credit for being blasted for a round and not going down rather than discredited.

[DLT]

why are people so scared of subjectivitey? The whole sport is based on that. We have 3 different judges, plus Lederman, and even more on Showtime. 90% of the time fans disagree with atleast half of them. Its a subjective sport. What do you like more? The boxer, brawler, etc....

Thats what the sport is based on so whats so wrong about not having a clear rule for 10-8, no knock downs? Its what you think as a judge and I have no problem with that. We arent going to agree on it but we never do anyways

[Dr Rumack]

Judges seem to base it on how much work the guy who lost the round got it. Getting beaten up for three minutes while landing next to nothing is what usually results in 10-8 rounds. If a guy does ok for the first two minutes and then gets rocked but survives, I don't think that usually leads to a 10-8.

Acknowledging in advance that Compubox is next to useless for measuring punches landed, I think the punch output of Bradley in Rounds 1&2 challenges the argument that he was completely dominated:



The punch output for the rounds is in Provodnikov's favour, but not overwhelmingly so.

Compare that with Rd 10 of Khan-Maidana for example:



In that Round 10, Maidana throws 85 shots to Khan's 32. In terms of power shots he out-throws him 70 to 14.

By contrast, Provodnikov out-throws Bradley by only 97 to 80 in Rd.2, and by 80 to 57 in terms of power shots.

So Bradley was not out of those rounds. Yes Provodnikov clearly won them and had Bradley in huge trouble. But Bradley wasn't curled up in his shell being totally dominated. What Maidana did to Khan was a clear 10-8 round. Rounds 1&2 of Bradley-Provodnikov were less clear cut.

[CubanGuyNYC]

When scoring at home, I rarely award a 10-8 round, but I have been known to do so. I'll only resort to that score if one guy is utterly dominant over his opponent, scoring countless hard shots, while the other is all but helpless. Usually this results in a fight stoppage. The last time I scored a 10-8 round was for the final round (I believe) of Barthelemy-Usmanee. I think that's a good example of what a 10-8 round looks like.

[White_Knight]

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?

That not actually true because if you are knocked down in 3 different rounds you would lose 6 points (10-8, 10-8, 10-8), whereas if you get knocked down 3 times in the same round you only lose 4 points (10-6). In the system I mentioned it would have been a 10-5 round for Pacquiao.

[B-Bomber]

The rules speak about domination.

It is of course open to a degree of interpretation, but it is reasonable to guess that four scoring criteria of the 10 point must system are indeed the right criteria to define the adjective "domination", in this case.

Hence, in order to get a 10-8 round one fighter has to be vastly superior in clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship ( the fighter who controls the pace and style of the bout) and defense.

How badly you hurt your opponent is only the likely result of a domination, but isn't a criteria in itself.

[junior gong]

The bolded is what i'm asking about. Is it subjective or is it clear what needs to happen to give a 10-8 round with no kd or point deduction

I dont think it is clear, it just relies(worryingly) on judges using sound judgement and common sense. I wouldnt have a problem with that first round being a 10-8 round whatsoever, likewise I wouldnt have a problem with anyone seeing it 10-9.

I honestly think too much is being made out of this.