Should 10-8 be the maximum a fighter can get out of a round ???

I remember someone gave Hearns a 10-4 round for Andries.....(was it the sixth round ??)...I mean it was a pitifully one sided affair.

However it's fair to say Andries didn't get his legs back after the first knockdown so all the subsequent knockdowns were related to the first...It was basically one long knockdown....As 10-7....10-6 rounds etc tend to be..

We've also seen other cases where Manny gets a gift draw by decking JMM down three times in the first.......In fairness to Manny his first fight with Bradley levelled this out !!

We want to see the right guy win fights don't we ? (Dodgy judging aside !!)

Think two rounds in a 12 round fight is more than enough.....That means If you win 6/12 rounds you win the fight..Providing you're not decked....So your opponent in theory needs to win at least 7-5.....

I think 10-8 should be the max you can get........If you can't get a fighter out after decking him twice in a round it's just tough doodie...

My opinion.....You shouldn't school someone and get shafted because of one big round !!.

10-4! Really? Know where you are coming from but you have to protect yourself at all times, so in the case of Andries and how you have refered to it as one long knockdown, do you think the ref should have stopped it & would a stoppage be justified? I know at one time at least one governing body or SAC had a 3 knockdown rule in effect. Don't agree with you myself and I think the judges are right to deduct a point per ko. All very well saying a 10-8 max with hindsight.

Hmm, interesting post. I can see your point in that fighters can get punished for not being able to clear their head if they get knocked down early in a round. However, in points terms it would mean that a round when a boxer can be pummelled (Cotto Martinez round 1) is worth as much as a round when a boxer gets knocked off balance and his glove touches down (Hopkins Calzaghe round 1).

Dropping your opponent 3 times in a round is hardly getting a gift - an additional point for every knockdown is a correct call in my opinion - the whole point of the sport is to inflict damage on your opponent you should be rewarded for putting your opponent on the canvas each time.

Cheers, Rodders

Who says it's in hindsight.....

If I get caught cold and get decked.three times in the first round and get my legs back in the 5th and then give someone a lesson for 8 rounds or so...

I end up drawing because of one punch ???...Multi knockdowns are generally the result of one punch with the canvas trips that follow all linked to it !!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Who says it's in hindsight.....

If I get caught cold and get decked.three times in  the first round and get my legs back in the 5th and then give someone a lesson for 8 rounds or so...

I end up drawing because of one punch ???...Multi knockdowns are generally the result of one punch with the canvas trips that follow all linked to it !!!

I am with regards to Manny vs Marquez, I think you are in this case. Should the judges think ' wait a moment this guy could actually recover from this and out box the guy for the rest of the fight, if we score it 10-6 maybe he ends up with a draw or even a loss'.

What do you think of the 3 knockdown rule? I remember Witherspoon losing to Bonecrusher Smith in this way, he looked fine after the knockdowns even winking at the camera whilst sitting in the corner after the stoppage.

The only thing the judges got wrong was giving Manny more than two rounds. .

One good round for me shouldn't offset four rounds of complete schooling..

Its hard for me to agree that a boxer who wins the 1st round comprehensively with 3 knockdowns then loses the majority of the next 11 is given the verdict, it doesn't show a true reflection of the fight.

In hindsight perhaps the old way of scoring it by rounds rather than points was the best way.

I think 10-9 is fair with an extra point deducted for a knock down.

You can give a 10-8 for a dominant round without a knock down. Maidana was given a 10-8 by the judges (or at least two of them) for the round against Khan where he battered him.

Problem is Nico...You get Wilfred Benitez ripping off Bruce Curry who decked him three times in the fight and lost 6-4...

Curry wins with Ten point must..

Tough one but with my way Curry gets a draw as two were in the same round....and Benitez gets a draw for winning 60 percent of the fight...

Interesting stuff though..

Valery....Problem with 10-8 for rounds without a knockdown is it's very subjective to the beholder when a good round becomes a dominant one..

I don't like it.....Plenty of bent officials as it is..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Valery....Problem with 10-8 for rounds without a knockdown is it's very subjective to the beholder when a good round becomes a dominant one..

I don't like it.....Plenty of bent officials as it is..

And there we have our 2 problems.

When did scoring take over from rounds won? Was an interesting idea but Truss points out a downside. The old British system used to have a half point scoring system until 10 point must came around, was that a better system? Never liked the 10 point must when a fighter is handily winning the round then gets knocked down right at the end and loses it 10-8, why not a 9-9?

I have to agree, I mean a lot of the time the subsequent knockdowns are a result of the first, so its a bit unfair.

Would be an interesting rule to implement

A system where you're not punished for being knocked down after the 1st knockdown would be abused by fighters.

You would see people taking a knee to clear their heads as soon as the other guy comes in to launch another attack if there was no point deduction for it.

Just to throw one in there what happens if a fighter is dropped three times in 1 round but drops his opponent once in the same round, how do we score the round if the scoring is 10-8 for knocking someone down 3 times in the same round.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Valery....Problem with 10-8 for rounds without a knockdown is it's very subjective to the beholder when a good round becomes a dominant one..

I don't like it.....Plenty of bent officials as it is..

I see what you mean and agree that of officiating doesn't need to have more room for abuse. Saying that a flash knockdown might not be as conclusive of a complete schooling from another fighter.

Ps - valery is my weekend name only!

bellchees wrote:A system where you're not punished for being knocked down after the 1st knockdown would be abused by fighters.

You would see people taking a knee to clear their heads as soon as the other guy comes in to launch another attack if there was no point deduction for it.

Fighters are too proud to take a knee....That won't change.

Nico the gman wrote:Just to throw one in there what happens if a fighter is dropped three times in 1 round but drops his opponent once in the same round, how do we score the round if the scoring is 10-8 for knocking someone down 3 times in the same round.

If 10-8 is the max you can get for a round Nico...Then 3-1 is 10-8...

Wouldn't work.

If they suffer a heavy knockdown they may dive to the floor for every punch landed thereafter in that round to get their legs back. And would only have to make up a 10-8 round.

Rather silly article.

Coxy001 wrote:Wouldn't work.

If they suffer a heavy knockdown they may dive to the floor for every punch landed thereafter in that round to get their legs back. And would only have to make up a 10-8 round.

Rather silly article.

Great point. I think it's one of boxing's few rules that actually works. Pacquiao's first round against Marquez has to count for more than two subsequent rounds of Marquez outjabbing him.

Smacks of (another) veiled dig at Pacquiao. Easy to watch that fight back and score for Marquez but in context - after that opening rounds - it would have been easy for judges to feel momentum was with the Filipino.

I think more scores are inaccurate because dominant rounds aren't scored wide enough than vice versa.

Dominating a round with a knockdown, then losing the next two even rounds because the judges are basically forced to pick a winner and being level isn't right.

Already some organisations cap the scores at 10-7 by the way.

Context is everything in this argument; Hearns was so dominant against Andries that he deserved to be winning the rounds by a bigger margin but with Pacquiao against Marquez, it was just one round of dominance that shouldn't overshadow the rest of the fight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Context is everything in this argument; Hearns was so dominant against Andries that he deserved to be winning the rounds by a bigger margin but with Pacquiao against Marquez, it was just one round of dominance that shouldn't overshadow the rest of the fight.

Pacquiao's first round blitz was so stunning, it was bound to have an impact on what the judges perceived was happening in there in subsequent rounds.

Ditching the rule for a point deduction for a knockdown would be best. Just have a 10-9 for a round won, 10-8 for a round dominated and hopefully try and encourage more entertaining fights.

I have seen too many cases where the knockdown rule is not effective or applied improperly. Especially where a flash knockdown causes a huge round swing in points or where a knockdown is caused by 90% slip and 10% punch landed.

I dont think the argument that if there was no knockdown penalty it would result in fighters flopping to the floor all the time is valid. Just penalise and deduct points via refereeing for that.

This thread would have you believe that Pacquaio dislocated both shoulders after that first round.

I appreciate the ultimate question of how much you can get out of a single round (I'm of the view that you gain a point per knockdown)but if you score each round on its merit (and not in the context of the flow of the rest of the fight) then you remove any room for argument.

If you have it as a point per knockdown then at the very least the boxer and his corner know for certain the deficit that they face at the end of that round.

CallMeBenji wrote:This thread would have you believe that Pacquaio dislocated both shoulders after that first round.

I appreciate the ultimate question of how much you can get out of a single round (I'm of the view that you gain a point per knockdown)but if you score each round on its merit (and not in the context of the flow of the rest of the fight) then you remove any room for argument.

If you have it as a point per knockdown then at the very least the boxer and his corner know for certain the deficit that they face at the end of that round.

He got a schooling mate.......JMM should have won comfortably despite the 10-6 round which say's it all

Aren't you one of the guys who thought Manny beat Mayweather in slow motion...... You are aren't you ??

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Context is everything in this argument; Hearns was so dominant against Andries that he deserved to be winning the rounds by a bigger margin but with Pacquiao against Marquez, it was just one round of dominance that shouldn't overshadow the rest of the fight.

Pacquiao's first round blitz was so stunning, it was bound to have an impact on what the judges perceived was happening in there in subsequent rounds.

No one is disputing that.............You're arguing with yourself again...

My point is that If they could only score it 10-8 the right man wins..

Coxy001 wrote:Wouldn't work.

If they suffer a heavy knockdown they may dive to the floor for every punch landed thereafter in that round to get their legs back. And would only have to make up a 10-8 round.

Rather silly article.

Go away.......

Scottrf wrote:I think more scores are inaccurate because dominant rounds aren't scored wide enough than vice versa.

Dominating a round with a knockdown, then losing the next two even rounds because the judges are basically forced to pick a winner and being level isn't right.

Already some organisations cap the scores at 10-7 by the way.

They aren't forced to pick a winner..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I think more scores are inaccurate because dominant rounds aren't scored wide enough than vice versa.

Dominating a round with a knockdown, then losing the next two even rounds because the judges are basically forced to pick a winner and being level isn't right.

Already some organisations cap the scores at 10-7 by the way.

They aren't forced to pick a winner..

They are discouraged from scoring even rounds.

Gone from forced to discouraged...... ...

'basically forced'.

I've basically got a ten inch knob..

In your arris maybe.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Wouldn't work.

If they suffer a heavy knockdown they may dive to the floor for every punch landed thereafter in that round to get their legs back. And would only have to make up a 10-8 round.

Rather silly article.

Go away.......

Start talking sense.

As a counter argument it would also be very unfair if boxer a wins round 1 and 4 with four knockdowns in each but every other round is very close with the other guy shading it on the cards. Could end up losing a fight where he had won the only clearly won rounds in a fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Context is everything in this argument; Hearns was so dominant against Andries that he deserved to be winning the rounds by a bigger margin but with Pacquiao against Marquez, it was just one round of dominance that shouldn't overshadow the rest of the fight.

Pacquiao's first round blitz was so stunning, it was bound to have an impact on what the judges perceived was happening in there in subsequent rounds.

No one is disputing that.............You're arguing with yourself again...

My point is that If they could only score it 10-8 the right man wins..

Nacker Jack was suggesting Pacquiao won the first big and lost the rest (which is a bit of a myth to be honest). I was explaining that the impact of that first round would have impacted on subsequent judging (Pacquiao would have looked in command as a result of it when, if you judged the fight "cold", that wouldn't necessarily the case).

You say it's a myth as if people haven't seen the fight and judged it for themselves which they have, take the first two rounds out and the fight was not close in the slightest, that impact on the judging should not have happened is the main point.

Absolutely...