Tweet
i know wilder's power is huge but i think this might go the same way the first one did.
-
-
While I generally agree with your post, the bolded is a much-perpetuated myth.
The idea of a subtracting an additional point is based on the idea that the fighter who scored the KD won the round. Obviously, this is most often the case. But it's not always the case. And it certainly is not the same as scoring a round with a KD as an automatic 10-8 Round. So, even when a fighter scores a KD, he might still only win the round 10-9. And if the fighter who initially scored the KD is himself floored, it becomes a 10-10 round.
The case of the 15th round is a great example of a Knockdown only resulting in a 10-9: Wilder floored Fury, but without the KD that would have absolutely been a Fury round. You have to ask yourself, without the KD how would you have scored the round? If a 10-9 for Wilder, then sure, make it 10-8. But if you wouldhave scored it 10-9 Fury, then he only loses 9-10.
(Sure, it was only because of the KD that Fury gave us his most spirited round of the fight; but it was Fury's best work, nonetheless).
I've heard the origins of deducting further points to a floored fighter started after Benitez was floored several times in the opening of a fight, only to recover and win the fight based on his accumulating the majority of rounds. Fans were infuriated that the man who inflicted the most damage and came the closest to out-right winning the fight by stoppage (what Boxing is all about) was denied because of numbers. The scorecards didn't reflect the reality of the fight.
Deducting further points for KD's is great: it's an incentive for violence, and fighters don't feel punished for expending themselves going for the finish. But the scoring should be applied appropriately and reflective of what happened inside the ring.
This is another pet-peeve of mine. Not as much of an itch in my crawl, but a more common problem.
The rules are also very clear about close rounds: you score them 10-10. It's allowed. Actually, that is what the rules prescribe.
Sure, you should keep a discerning eye, looking out for whatever might set two men apart. But it's very possible that fights will be close. That's part of what was so wonderful about Boxing 100 years ago: if a fight went the distance, it was ruled a "No Decision", and the Press made their cases heard.
That might be unsavory, but is it really any worse than trying to pretend one man is better than another just to have a sense of finality?
I scored the Fight 117-110, and 117-112 on different occasions. Wilder clearly won the rounds where he floored Fury, but again I felt the 12th would have been an easy 10-9 for Fury, if he hadn't been decked. And the two rounds i scored close were basically me punishing Fury for inactivity and awarding Wilder for inactivity: Wilder stood there confused, not surrendering himself to Fury's traps.Comment
-
Good posts. I agree that a fighter can certainly win a round in which he’s been floored, but in practice it’s rather unusual. I won’t award him the round unless he gets up and beats his opponent quite dominantly. That’s pretty much the way professional judges see it too. It’s often a tricky round to judge if a downed fighter comes back well.
I try to be as decisive as possible when judging individual rounds. This is mainly because of what I’ve been led to understand about proper scoring. However, I’ve been known to score the occasional 10-10 round. Maybe it would indeed be better if judges didn’t feel compelled to be so decisive. Then again, maybe there would be a lot more draws — something no one wants. But you’re right, one can watch a fight with close rounds on one occasion and score it differently on another viewing. It happens often enough.Comment
Comment