I was wondering what people's thoughts on this were?
When a fighter is completely dominant throughout the whole three minutes with virtually no punches in return being landed, do you ever give a 10-8 round without a KD? I'm thinking of stuff like some of the Joe Blow-Lacy rounds, or the three judges scoring 10-8 in the 7th round of Baldomir-Judah.
It seems a fairer way IMO to reflect the way a fight has progressed. Too often you get fights being won because someone "edged" or "nicked" rounds, while the other rounds were completely dominant in one direction.
Or take Hatton-Collazo... was it really fair that the Collazo that had Hatton in a world of trouble in the 12th should only get a 10-9 score, while Hatton picks up 10-8 in the first due to a harmless flash knockdown?
When a fighter is completely dominant throughout the whole three minutes with virtually no punches in return being landed, do you ever give a 10-8 round without a KD? I'm thinking of stuff like some of the Joe Blow-Lacy rounds, or the three judges scoring 10-8 in the 7th round of Baldomir-Judah.
It seems a fairer way IMO to reflect the way a fight has progressed. Too often you get fights being won because someone "edged" or "nicked" rounds, while the other rounds were completely dominant in one direction.
Or take Hatton-Collazo... was it really fair that the Collazo that had Hatton in a world of trouble in the 12th should only get a 10-9 score, while Hatton picks up 10-8 in the first due to a harmless flash knockdown?
Comment