Shouldn't 10-8 be the maximum Judges can score a round????

Think about it you can basically own a guy 8 rounds to 4 but If he gets lucky and decks you and drops you a couple more times while your head's clearing he can get four rounds for it and get a draw or better in some cases!!!

8-4 in rounds to me seems to suggest that you are clearly the better man..

Let's look at Manny v Marquez 1......the guy got his ears boxed off but because he caught Marquez cold he gets a SCANDALOUS DRAW!!

No 10-8 will do fine................no more....

We don't want the wrong guy winning...Well you know what I mean??

Anyway what's with my excellent Sex and legs article being banned???? Jolly bad show!!

Using the 10 point must system, beyond 10-8 a judge can use his discretion, for instance the first round of the Marquez and Pacquiao fight could have been scored 10-6 or 10-7.

Yes but giving a guy a three or four round start surely is wrong..
If I beat you 8-4 in rounds then I've proved I'm better surely..

Four rounds for a temporary blip...
Crazy..

I can see both sides of the argument. Totally dominating a round by knocking down the other guy 3 times should be scored better than a KD where the guy was caught off balance.

But as Trussy said, 8-4 and you still lose the fight? Something is not right there.

No it shouldnt, if you knockdown your opponents 3 times, but you get the same points as if you knock them down once, that's more of an injustice.

A knockdown should count as a point taken off because you are on the floor.

Marquez may of boxed manny's ears off, but the fact he wa son the floor 3 ones and manny wasn't, it should he given against him.

You shouldn't get knocked down three times in the first place should you though Truss. If you do get knocked down three times (10-6) in a round but do win 8 out of 12 rounds you would still win 113-112.

I don't need a math lesson...But one dominant round scored the wrong way!!!

People shouldn't do a lot of things but s**t happens..

Just look at Man City..

Daft idea. I love the fact you can turn round a fight in the last few rounds.

Knock down = -1 point

It is a foul, like holding or doing something else illegal.

You get a 10-15 second break why you are getting battered.

Don't agree with this at all, Truss. If a fighter wins eleven rounds and then gets stopped in the twelfth, is that an injustice too, as he was the better man for the most part?

Why shouldn't a fighter be rewarded more for putting his opponent on his wallet three times than he should for doing it just the once? Moreover, why should the decked fighter pay no extra consequence for three mistakes or lapses in concentration than he should for just the one?

Terribly frustrating for Marquez first time out against Manny, I agree. But ultimately, it's his job to not allow his opponent to dominate him like that, regardless of whether he was caught cold or not. As long as the judges are competent, I don't think there are really too many problems with the current scoring system.

Did you see Hilton-Hines??..............Three knockdowns in I think rds 3 and 5???

Got completely outboxed the rest of the fight....

You could have given him five rounds... which means two of the more closer rounds get given to him and we are looking at a pretty much drawing scenario......

which luckily we didn't get because ten of the rounds were completely onesided.......

But that belies my point he could've got a draw...

Manny basically drew against Marquez because of round 1.....

I scored the fight 10-1-1

That was okay was it???

But hey I respect your decision as I do Az's and Imperials.........

But not as much as I do my own!!

I think that the knockdown scoring system is fine but 10-8 rounds without knockdowns should be given more often. For me a flash knockdown in an otherwise even round shouldn't be better than boxing someones ears off for 3 minutes. It seems that it takes a ridiculously one sided round like Khan vs Maidana round 10 for the judges to score a 10-8 round without a knockdown.

I do think the manner of a knockdown should be taken into account, I don't think the first round in the Marquez/Pacquiao fight should be scored 10-6 because at least two of them were just flash knockdowns that didn't seem to affect him in anyway. You win 8 rounds out of 12 then one poor round isn't going to cost you the fight, there does need to be more flexibility in the scroring.

For instance in the 10th round of the Khan/Maidana fight had Khan got a last second knockdown he would have been awarded the round 10-8 despite being dominanted, in that scenario an 8-8 or 9-8 round to Maidana seems the most sensible. That is of course dependent on the knockdown were it a flash knockdown then 9-8 Maidana but were it a knockdown like in the first round then 8-8.

Personally prefer the really old school but very rarely used 20 point scoring system which during the 60's seemed to be the preference outside of America, gives more flexibility to the scoring.

I think a fighter who can knock his opponent down should be rewarded, whether it's a heavy knockdown or not. A fighter can't be on the floor 3 or 4 times in a round and not be punished for it.

this argument is fundamentally down to whether you believe in the principle that each round is a fight in its own right, or whether you'd rather judge who was the better guy on the night. There are loads of cases where a a guy wins his rounds clearly and the other wins his closely. Macklin sturm is a fair example... macklin was the better man on the night but round by round a draw was about right in my book.

Personally, i think judges should have greater leeway, and it shouldnt be seen a copout to score a round even. But that goes against the principle of boxing scoring down the years. As it is, the 10-8/7 etc is essentially basically a minus 1 for a knock down, and i'd agree with ghosty that its weakness is when the knockdown is scored against the guy who was winning that round. They should score the round as they otherwise would and take a point off the guy that gets dropped... or add it on to the guy who dropped him

Fair enough........

Just like to see the better Man winning!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Fair enough........

Just like to see the better Man winning!!

Understand where you are coming from but the better man needs to stay on his feet. I don't actually think the 1st Manny vs JMM is a great robbery unlike the 3rd fight, which defines robbery, bad/biased judging.

As I have mentioned before I scored the first round in Marquez Pacquiao I 10-7 Marquez was easily winning the round until he got knocked down multiple times.

The punch that probably hurt Marquez the most was the one when he was unguarded with his glove was on the canvas.