giving 10-8 rounds without a knockdown/point deduction

[daggum]

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.

i see what you are saying. corrupt and idiotic judges like harold lederman will give out 10-8 rounds in fights like vargas-omatoso when it benefits the hype guy but then when bradley was dominated much more in the very next fight he forgets his own rules and what he just said. basically the hype guy will always benefit but that's already the case since boxing isn't an actual sport.

[Ray*]

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...

I agree with you 100%, I think a fighter needs to be rewarded when they stay on their feet, I only ever a round a 10-8 round when a fighter had been down.

[-PBP-]

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

If he's on his feet and fighting back then he shouldn't lose a point.

You lose a point when you get knocked down. Not when you get stunned.

If that's the case, I would take a knee and run 15-20 seconds off the clock every time I get stunned since I know I'm going to lose a point whether I stay on my feet or not.

[IIG]

10-8 rounds without knockdowns should be for totally one sided rounds. If the fighter had any good portions of the round or are fighting back while catching a beating, they don't deserve the extra point deduction. Basically a fighter shouldn't be penalized extra for staying on their feet and still trying to win.

[IIG]

If he's on his feet and fighting back then he shouldn't lose a point.

You lose a point when you get knocked down. Not when you get stunned.

If that's the case, I would take a knee and run 15-20 seconds off the clock every time I get stunned since I know I'm going to lose a point whether I stay on my feet or not.

Exactly. The fights Saturday night exposed a lot of armchair judges, including some of the HBO broadcast team.

[Ray*]

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.

Pretty much....

[Russian Crushin]

I agree with you 100%, I think a fighter needs to be rewarded when they stay on their feet, I only ever a round a 10-8 round when a fighter had been down.

I reward fighters for wearing gloves and a mouth piece

Why reward for something they have to do?

[Rockin']

10-8 rounds with no knockdown should be common place. I mean beat a guy by a hair you get 10-9, beat a guy horribly from pillar to post and it's the same 10-9 score. This should be a discussion about 10-7 rounds. ...........Rockin'

[Hougigo]

Judges have given 10-8 scores for rounds in which another fighter has dominated an opponent that offered little in terms of retaliation.

As far as I know this is completely up to the judges discretion.

So what?
Bradley should have gotten a 10-8 for Round 3?
Bradley was still throwing back. He probably threw more while he was hurt than Ruslan did in all of round 3.

[Ray*]

I reward fighters for wearing gloves and a mouth piece

Why reward for something they have to do?

Good for you..