View Full Version : What's your theory on giving out 10-10 rounds?
klion22
03-07-2008, 11:33 AM
I think yesterday's Martinez/Williams fight is another example of why 10-10 rounds should be given out more often in boxing. The reality is, they almost never happen. But don't you guys think it should? Doing this would ensure that the clearer rounds would decide the fight.
rusticraver
03-07-2008, 11:35 AM
They rarely happen in reality.
zicas
03-07-2008, 11:36 AM
Lederman: Okay JIM, 3 rounds to 1, Roy Jones Junior boxing beautifully from the outside!
Merchant: I got it..... 2 rounds to 1.... and 1 even
Mendoza
03-07-2008, 11:36 AM
I must admit that i give out a lot of 10-10 rounds in the 1st round of fights because in a lot of them, there is almost nothing going on and whichever fighter "wins" that round on the scorecard would have an unfair advantage. Merchant seems to do this a lot too.
I'm also not hesitant to give out 10-10 rounds in any later rounds either. If it's too close to call, i think it's only fair to make it even instead of giving such a close round to a guy who might not have won it.
I think this type of scoring belief makes it more fair for both guys.
What's your take on this?
I have no issues with it at all, as long as the round is close. A very close 10-10 round to be is a lot better than giving someone a 10-9 rounds that could have gone either way.
I think 10-10 rounds have the best case when there is limited action going on, and both fighters land the same amount of blows.
klion22
03-07-2008, 11:36 AM
They rarely happen in reality.
Yeah, and i think that's a problem. Why are judges so hesitant to simply give out a 10-10 round if the action is too close to call?
I'm with Merchant on this. I've called a lot of fights 10-10 just the way Merchant has in a lot of 1st round of fights.
klion22
03-07-2008, 11:38 AM
Lederman: Okay JIM, 3 rounds to 1, Roy Jones Junior boxing beautifully from the outside!
Merchant: I got it..... 2 rounds to 1.... and 1 even
:good That's just one of the reasons why i like Merchant.
Another reason is his funny quotes. When Hopkins was fighting Taylor in their first fight, he said, "At one time, Hopkins was a lion who hunted down his prey. Now, he's a lion who hides in the weeds and waits for his prey to walk by." :lol: So true.
PH|LLA
03-07-2008, 11:41 AM
My theory is that it should happen more often but because I know judges don't do it then i don't do it because i want to score the fight as i would if i were one of the judges.
klion22
03-07-2008, 11:46 AM
My theory is that it should happen more often but because I know judges don't do it then i don't do it because i want to score the fight as i would if i were one of the judges.
I don't. I score it the way i see it. I just think giving a round that is too close to call to one fighter is simply unfair. The POINT of scoring a fight is to proplerly evaluate who wins a fight. That doesn't mean one has to score a round 10-9. You can give out 10-10 rounds. And in that way, the winner will have "earned" the victory instead of getting some favorable rounds which were too close to call.
I just don't see why judges are so averse to giving out 10-10 rounds. Are they afraid that their scores will end up a draw? Well, mathematically, it really doesn't matter if you give out 10-10 rounds or 10-9 rounds.
PH|LLA
03-07-2008, 11:47 AM
I don't. I score it the way i see it. I just think giving a round that is too close to call to one fighter is simply unfair. The POINT of scoring a fight is to proplerly evaluate who wins a fight. That doesn't mean one has to score a round 10-9. You can give out 10-10 rounds. And in that way, the winner will have "earned" the victory instead of getting some favorable rounds which were too close to call.
I just don't see why judges are so averse to giving out 10-10 rounds. Are they afraid that their scores will end up a draw? Well, mathematically, it really doesn't matter if you give out 10-10 rounds or 10-9 rounds.
actually since i bet on most fights, the point of scoring rounds is to figure out who will get the nod so i know if i'm winning or losing my bet.
When i don't bet on a fight i usually don't score rounds.
klion22
03-07-2008, 11:54 AM
actually since i bet on most fights, the point of scoring rounds is to figure out who will get the nod so i know if i'm winning or losing my bet.
When i don't bet on a fight i usually don't score rounds.
Yeah, but my point is that it doesn't matter if you score rounds 10-10 or 10-9. The chances of a fight being a draw is the same either way. You can give score the first 11 rounds of a fight 10-10 and score the 12th at 10-9 and you would have a winner.
It just bothers me to see rounds that are so close given to one guy. Those close rounds in close fights usually decide most fights. Why not let the clear rounds decide the fights?
PH|LLA
03-07-2008, 11:57 AM
Yeah, but my point is that it doesn't matter if you score rounds 10-10 or 10-9. The chances of a fight being a draw is the same either way. You can give score the first 11 rounds of a fight 10-10 and score the 12th at 10-9 and you would have a winner.
It just bothers me to see rounds that are so close given to one guy. Those close rounds in close fights usually decide most fights. Why not let the clear rounds decide the fights?
tell me what you think of this old post i wrote a while back
The judges have alot of points to play with in the 10 point system, why limit them so much?
a guy wins a round by a hair or closely? 10-9 or 10-8
wins it convincingly? 10-7 or 10-6
dominates it? 10-5 or even 10-4
Why be limited to 10-9 or 10-8 in extreme cases?
also, the more judges the better. Especially in big fights where they can easily afford it.
klion22
03-07-2008, 12:02 PM
tell me what you think of this old post i wrote a while back
Well, those are much more extreme examples of scoring.
PH|LLA
03-07-2008, 12:04 PM
Well, those are much more extreme examples of scoring.
well thats not how i score either :lol: just a suggestion on how i think fights should be scored.
Jazzo
03-07-2008, 12:09 PM
If there is no clear winner then scoring 10-10 is best.
What is in an extra jab landed?
klion22
03-07-2008, 12:11 PM
And what's up with judges all being like 70? I think we need younger judges who will actually move once in a while to get a better close up of the action and not just sit like robots and not care about the action that is obstructed from their view. If i were a judge, i would probably require walking room on my side so i'm on top of the action. And i'm being serious.
If neither fighters wins the round, they shouldn't...win the round, if you get me. If both fighters press the action for exactly 1:30 of a round, both throw 60 punches and land 20, both show the same amount of ring generalship and whatever, neither man deserves to win or lose the round.
10-10 rounds should happen a lot more often than they do. In a lot of cases, you simpyl can't pick between the two fighters. If that is the case, one doesn't deserve to be penalised when he has done the same as the other guy.
i score 10/10 rounds.
it is my beleif that in 90% of fights where there is a big crowd and a big hometown fighter the hometown fighter gets these rounds on judges scorecards which is why hometown advantage is just that.
klion22
03-07-2008, 12:29 PM
If neither fighters wins the round, they shouldn't...win the round, if you get me. If both fighters press the action for exactly 1:30 of a round, both throw 60 punches and land 20, both show the same amount of ring generalship and whatever, neither man deserves to win or lose the round.
10-10 rounds should happen a lot more often than they do. In a lot of cases, you simpyl can't pick between the two fighters. If that is the case, one doesn't deserve to be penalised when he has done the same as the other guy.
:good Common sense and logic huh?
Brickhaus
03-07-2008, 12:30 PM
This is probably more of a classic forum question, but does anyone know what the deal was with Hagler-Seales I? That's some wacky scoring. 10 round fight, scores were 99-99, 99-99, 98-96. How can there be THAT many draw rounds in a single fight?
I usually don't score a round 10-10. i am usually hesitant to simply give out a 10-10, but if the action is too close to call...then i'm not going to favour one guy over the other.
Dorfmeister
03-07-2008, 01:24 PM
I don't think you should score rounds even if it's too close to call because basically you are not giving any credit to one of the fighters' effort - it's better to hurt one running into the risk of misjudging than any other option. Consider Mosley-Cotto, they almost threw the same number of punches all the way from start to finish so where should you draw the line? I do agree that you should make it even in uneventful rounds and that will bring the scorecards closer, hurting the winner for his lack of effort. Finally, there is no reason to score rounds 10 to 9 if the rounds are very balanced towards one guy, even if no knockdown happen.
thewoo
03-07-2008, 01:30 PM
I'd like to see them more often. Too often I think that a round is too close to call and the judges just give it to one guy to avoid looking indesicive.
sugarngold
03-07-2008, 01:47 PM
I don't like to use even rounds. Someone has to win each round - even when it's close.
booradley
03-07-2008, 01:49 PM
I score rounds even sometimes. Usually when not much happened, or the round was a barn burner where both fighters looked good. I also believe in 10-8 without a knock down.
Boo
Jazzo
03-07-2008, 01:55 PM
I don't like to use even rounds. Someone has to win each round - even when it's close.
In theory, perhaps.
But the judges cannot even get the "obvious" rounds right it seems, so surely one would be better simply to err straight down the middle.
thewoo
03-07-2008, 02:04 PM
I don't like to use even rounds. Someone has to win each round - even when it's close.
It's the fighters job to win the round not the judges job to give it to him.
klion22
12-06-2009, 05:31 PM
Bump.
Jazzo
12-06-2009, 05:32 PM
I'll make a third post.
It is not that there is no difference, but rather that there is no significant difference (in an even round).
The debate should perhaps centre around what constitutes a significant difference.
Cobbler
12-06-2009, 05:49 PM
I think yesterday's Martinez/Williams fight is another example of why 10-10 rounds should be given out more often in boxing. The reality is, they almost never happen. But don't you guys think it should? Doing this would ensure that the clearer rounds would decide the fight.
Agree entirely. The problem comes when there are rounds where there are rounds where essentially nothing happens. Under current scoring convention the judges are then forced to look for a reason to give the round to one fighter or another (did one land one or two jabs, or the other 'attempt to press the action?). The Froch/Dirrell fight was a really good example, and that is the reason why there are very differing spreads. That fight could legitimately be scored anywhere from 7-5 Froch to 8-4 Dirrell depending on how you score a number of rounds where basically neither accomplished anything of any worth.
That said, I don't think there is any point in making up your own scoring system, so when I am watching and scoring a fight I score it according to current judging convention, so I can compare my card to the judges ones.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.