Old-Time Fights under Today's Refereeing

**hawk5ins** · 01-10-2008, 12:14 PM

The phrase "proportionately less" leaves it a tad gray, eh?

Hawk

**10-8** · 01-10-2008, 12:25 PM

The ten point must system is a joke anyway.

Why have 10 available points when the criteria of even giving a guy 8 points seems to be so debated and so many are stingy with giving that one extra point.

The general way is to give a guy 8 points if he hits the deck or if he gets hurt and pummeled for some of the round but doesn't go down. If a boxer gets pummeled for the majority of 3 minutes and dropped a couple of times, he ususally gets 7 points. That leaves 1,2,3,4,5,6 points pretty much obsolete. How little does a guy have to do to get one of theses denominations.

We should go to awarding a by the rounds basis and tack on bonus points for scoring KD's or hurting and battering a guy.

Did anyone find it odd that Hagler was awarded a 10-8 round (I think it was the 6th) by one of the judges in the Duran fight?

**hawk5ins** · 01-10-2008, 12:42 PM

And Marvin STILL Barely won the fight according to the Judges!

Holy smokes. Closest 10-4-1 fight I've ever seen!

Hawk

**raylawpc** · 01-10-2008, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by 10-8

The ten point must system is a joke anyway.

Why have 10 available points when the criteria of even giving a guy 8 points seems to be so debated and so many are stingy with giving that one extra point.

The general way is to give a guy 8 points if he hits the deck or if he gets hurt and pummeled for some of the round but doesn't go down. If a boxer gets pummeled for the majority of 3 minutes and dropped a couple of times, he ususally gets 7 points. That leaves 1,2,3,4,5,6 points pretty much obsolete. How little does a guy have to do to get one of theses denominations.

We should go to awarding a by the rounds basis and tack on bonus points for scoring KD's or hurting and battering a guy.

Did anyone find it odd that Hagler was awarded a 10-8 round (I think it was the 6th) by one of the judges in the Duran fight?

Maybe the best system would be a ten-point "must" system, but limit it to 10, 9, 8 and 7 points. Its hard to imagine anything less than a 10-7 round, although a boxing judge years ago laughingly told me he would have scored the first round of Dempsey-Firpo "10-2!"

I don't know. I'm not challenging anyone's opinion. I'm just curious what others think.

Message edited because I misread 10-8's initial message.

**10-8** · 01-10-2008, 05:16 PM

How about a mandatory 3 point must system with the 3 KD rule in effect.

3-3 for an even round.

3-2 for winning a round.

3-1 for scoring a clean knockdown or visibly hurting and battering a guy.

3-0 for scoring 2 knockdowns and/or one KD and a general 3 minute beat down.

**raylawpc** · 01-10-2008, 06:40 PM

10-8, are you advocating automatic scoring? That is, a knockdown always results in a 3-1 round? What about the situation where fighter "A" is cleaning fighter "B"'s clock for 2:45 second of the round, and then suffers a flash KD in the last 10 seconds but isn't hurt - maybe A was just off balance when the punch landed. Is the round still scored for "B" on a 3-1 basis? Or, does the judge have some discretion in the scoring?

Another interesting proposal was made by Jerry Quarry's surviving brother, who called for stopping a fight after three-KDs in the fight, NOT in a single round. (In other words, a fighter gets knocked down in the first, second and fifth rounds, and the fight is stopped automatically.)

Any thoughts on that?

**10-8** · 01-10-2008, 08:42 PM

Ray, I'm not advocating automatic scoring but a general guideline. There would be exceptions. The one you used is an exception compared to the standard guy loses the round and gets KD'd in the process. Another would be if a guy gets decked then roars back and dominates he could certainly even the round out.

I don't like the 3 KD's in a fight proposal. Maybe 5?

**Michael Frank** · 01-10-2008, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by hawk5ins

IMO if a round is relatively close whether or not there is alot of action or very little action, then it constitutes a 1 point round.

If a round features onesided dominance where the other fighter is hurt, then I think calling the round a 2 point round is not out of the question.

In the 12th rounds of Hearns Leonard II, I saw Hearns dominate the first minute landing serveral flush, hard, clean, stinging combinations. The next 3rd of the round saw Leonard VISIBLY Hurting Hearns and the final 3rd was a clutch fest.

WIthout the first 3rd in whihc Hearns did so well in, I like 10-8, would have called it a 2 point round. It is my opinion that that portion of the round offset meriting the round a 2 pointer for Ray, even though Ray had Tommy in MUCH more trouble than Tommy had Ray in.

Now where the real crux of the scoring issue as it pertains to boxing in general, is the difference between a close round that one would call a 10-9 round and a clear round in whihc fighter A wins the round, but not enough to make it a 2 point round. One has a clear winner and the other has a close winner, yet both are scored the same.

I maintain this still is the way to go, even though to be honest, i see the point made and parts of my position leave me a tad uncomfortable. I just don't like the alternative of handing out TOO many 2 point rounds.

I guess if an analogy could be made here, a layup by John Stockton and an emphatic Dunk by Micheal Jordan, through traffic and possibly in someone's face, are both worth 2 points. Yet one SEEMS like it was worth more.

Probably a weak comparison, but it was all I could come up with.

Hawk

I agree with every word. It just for years has struck me as unfortunate that a guy who lands 85 blows in a round to his opponent's 75 gets a 1-point advantage, same as a boxer who lands 10 in a round to the other guy's 6.

It must be this way, I know. But, the "weighting" means that a lethargic, first round feel-out 1-point round counts the same as an action-filled, dramatic, end-of-bout effort when the action is close . . . again, one point.

Just an observation, I'm not saying there is some better method.

**raylawpc** · 01-10-2008, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by 10-8

Ray, I'm not advocating automatic scoring but a general guideline. There would be exceptions. The one you used is an exception compared to the standard guy loses the round and gets KD'd in the process. Another would be if a guy gets decked then roars back and dominates he could certainly even the round out.

I don't like the 3 KD's in a fight proposal. Maybe 5?

Thanks for the clarification, 10-8.

The interesting thing about the proposal voiced by Jerry's brother is the idea that if a fighter is dropped three times in a fight, he is taking too much punishment; thus, the rule would help prevent what happened to Jerry and Mike. Yet, I can't recall Jerry ever being dropped three times in a fight, and I don't think Mike was either. So the rule espoused by their brother would have been of no benefit to them.

**10-8** · 01-10-2008, 11:58 PM

The guys that take too much punishment are usually the guys that don't get dropped, they stay upright and keep soaking it up. Think of Howard Davis Jr. One good shot and he goes down compared to Ali who would just soak the bombs up like a sponge.

Ditto about Quarry. He was of the sponge variety. What Jerry took against Frazier II and Norton was sickening.