Can you still win a round you've been knocked down in?

[coufsax]

Wow! I'm surprised to see so many people not clear about how to score a round with a KD. If you Knock down your opponent you get an extra point that would be 1 point for winning the round 1 point for the Knock Down. If you lose the round decisively but you KD your opponent the round is scored even.

[Fury]

Wow! I'm surprised to see so many people not clear about how to score a round with a KD. If you Knock down your opponent you get an extra point that would be 1 point for winning the round 1 point for the Knock Down. If you lose the round decisively but you KD your opponent the round is scored even.

But if a boxer HAS to be awarded 10 points for winning the round it gets confusing and unfair.

Say boxer A is losing the round. (10-9) He scores a knock-down... what does that make the round? 10-9 to him? That can't be right as he was losing the fight up to that point, the KD just makes it even. So you would have to score it 10-10 at that point in the round?

[daggum]

10-0 to whichever fighter you like more regardless of knockdowns. this system has never failed me.

[Nekronicle]

man, how is this thread 5 pages...and this forum is supposed to be populated by knowledgeable folks (-_-)


To answer the original post. The round would be scored 10-9, after the first minute the judges should have had it scored 10 -8, but based on the fact fighter A dominated the rest of the round, he could earn his point back bringing it to 10 - 9 (Still losing the round though). If fighter A managed to knock down fighter B afterwards, the KD's would cancel each other out and scored normally, and possibly 10 - 10, which only signifies an EVEN round [a knockdown is not necessary for an even round to be scored] Now a days, Even rounds are frowned upon ...in the past Even rounds happened OFTEN.


Secondly, a 9 - 9 round can only exist if a fighter wins the round but committed a foul... Foul's are deducted at the END of a round on the judges score card. So you score the round normally, if Fighter A wins the round, 10 - 9, but committed 2 fouls and lost 2 points, the round would be 8 - 9.

Thirdly, First KD is always 2 points, subsequent KD's are 1 point. Therefore Pac/JMM round would of been scored 10 - 6.

[Fury]

The first knock down isn't two points where did you get that from?

[Nekronicle]

if a round starts off at 10 - 10, which they all do, and a KD occurs before a winner is clear ... thats 2 points.


**should of said, first KD results in winning the round at that point + an extra point...then subsequent KD's are 1 point**

point remains valid.

[Fury]

Seems unfair that a flash knock down causes a 2 point swing when it should only even up the round.

[Drunken Cat]

A clean knock down usually gets the fighter who scored it a 10 to 8 round even if the fighter who was knocked down gets up and wins the rest of the round. That may not be fair but from what I have seen in hundreds of fights that's usually the way it is. The best bet for him to win the round is to return the knock down and then win the rest of the round.That is how Martinez won a 10-9 round on some cards after Williams knocked him down early in the round.

This is the best post in the thread so far.

And I think the confusion going on here is that the original question is in fact a technical one, based on the rules. All of the answers though are related simply to practical experience from watching fights.

In practice, an unreturned knockdown almost always leads to a 10-8 round. There is no rule however that a knockdown is automatically a point. That's just the conventional approach, or so far as I understand it. The fact that guys get 10-9 rounds in some rare instances seems to corroborate this. I'd be pleased to know if I am wrong, but as far as I know that is the case.

I do not know the actual rules as per say the unified rules. It'd be nice to hear from someone who actually does though.

[1nonlymre]

Here's the thing. This thread seemed frivolous at first, but it got me thinking. I think the main problem with judging, even with the professional judges, is that folks tend to score a round as it progresses. I'm guilty of this as well. I think it's best practice to judge a round once it is completed or deemed completed (in the case of a stoppage on cuts). Once the round is finished you evaluate the round and award the dominant fighter ten points. I believe knockdowns trump the dominance at this point. In determining dominance, you first look to the any and all knockdowns of the previous round. DOing this may negate knockdowns if both fighters go down. Otherwise, whoever had the greater amounts of knockdowns get the automatic nod for that round, giving them ten points. Let's say fighter A is thus dominant. Fighter B's score is based on how many times he was knocked down. Fighter B already has 9 points, if he was knocked down once he gets 9-1; if knocked down twice he gets 9-2, etc. Then after taking account dominance and knockdowns you then factor in the lesser scored fighter's performance in the round. This too can negate a knockdown. So, if Fighter B is knocked down but is otherwise dominating the round he can salvage one more point, while still losing the round (10-9).
After all that, you lastly take into account any deducted points due to fouls, resulting in a final score for the round.

So, to summarize:
A full three minute round ends wit one of two scenarios:

A) No knockdowns
or
B) With one or more knockdowns

If you have scenario A, you judge the dominant fighter based on the criteria of
1. Clean punching
2. Effective aggressiveness.
3. Ring generalship.
4. Defense.

That fighter gets 10 points, the other fighter gets 9 points.
You then assess any point deductions due to fouls as determined by the referee only.
Pretty straight-forward

Then you have scenario B:
*Note: Knockdowns trump everything in this example.
Whoever has the most knockdowns gets 10 points. If both fighters are equal in this, the knockdowns negate themselves.
If Fighter A has a knockdown advantage he wins the initial 10 points (leaving the scoring at 10-9) at that point at the end of the round.
The number of non-negated knockdowns results in a greater advantage for Fighter A by taking points away from Fighter B in terms of the number of non-negated knockdowns.
Then, you look at fighter B based on the following criteria:
1. Clean punching
2. Effective aggressiveness.
3. Ring generalship.
4. Defense.
If fighter B excels in these points against Fighter A, then one of the knockdowns against fighter B can be negated and they would gain back one point.

There you go.

One last caveat, if fighter b fights well enough to make the round a 10-10 after the knockdown you you've got one hell of a fight on your hands!

[Drunken Cat]

Here's the thing. This thread seemed frivolous at first, but it got me thinking. I think the main problem with judging, even with the professional judges, is that folks tend to score a round as it progresses. I'm guilty of this as well. I think it's best practice to judge a round once it is completed or deemed completed (in the case of a stoppage on cuts). Once the round is finished you evaluate the round and award the dominant fighter ten points. I believe knockdowns trump the dominance at this point. In determining dominance, you first look to the any and all knockdowns of the previous round. DOing this may negate knockdowns if both fighters go down. Otherwise, whoever had the greater amounts of knockdowns get the automatic nod for that round, giving them ten points.

Practically, this works in the average case.

But what about flash knockdowns?

What about true beatings in which a guy is perhaps close to being stopped on his feet, but never actually touches down, and manages to make it to the bell.

Lets pose a hypothetical example. Let's say fighter A gets caught out of position and off balance 30 seconds into the round or so, and his glove touches the canvas, and it is ruled a knockdown. Technically, it is a proper ruling, he was off balance, and a punch landed which caused him to touch down. However, he is not hurt at all.

He then proceeds to beat fighter B from pillar to post for the remaining 2:20 or so of the round. He lays a real beating on the guy, though never quite gets him down, and the round ends.

What do you do, as a judge?

This is the sort of question that is in want of a proper answer.