Got to ask you this because it's the model that I use for scoring knockdowns and I get different answers from different people:

Remember the 8th round of Douglas-Tyson? We know, despite what two of the three judges had that Douglas controlled almost all of the fight. I gave Tyson the benefit of the doubt and still had Douglas up 5-3-1 (Scoring rounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 for Douglas. Rounds 6-8 for Tyson, Round 4, Even.

In round 8, Douglas is having an incredible round and is smashing Tyson all over the ring. Tyson lands a lucky punch that drops Tyson toward the end of the round. How do you score this critical round? I scored it 10-9 for Tyson. The reason is because I must give credit for Tyson's knockdown. But IMO it is not fair to judge that round as a 10-8 for Tyson because doing so negates ALL of Buster's outstanding work in that round. If you score that round as a 10-8, that's exactly what you are doing as a judge. (All judges gave that round a 10-8 to Tyson, making that fight closer on two of the cards than it certainly should have been.) Buster's punishment to Mike was far more severe for the first 2:50 of that round, as opposed to Mike's knockdown.

Jack

PS. I also don't think it is fair to score two point knockdown rounds on obvious mistaken calls of knockdowns that were clearly slips and do not do so. Fights such as Morales-Barrera round 12 and Hagler-Roldan round 1 illustrate this. On an obvious slip, especially if the boxer would have won the round if the ref hadn't fucked up, that's a 10-9 round and no more than that for a "bogus" knockdown. This is just my view, but I think it is needed for impartiality and fairness in judging.

Didn't we have in Tszyu-Phillips a round that went 10-10, 10-9, 10-8 that had a quick knockdown in it? I also recall Jerry Roth scoring Moorer-Holyfield round 2 as a 10-10 round despite Holyfield's flash knockdown of Moorer. Moorer got up and controlled the rest of the round, which I carded 10-9 Holyfield.

Thoughts? Is this a case of strange judging, or flaws in the 10-point must system with its subjectivity in scoring knockdowns?

I almost always score a round 10-8 if there is a single knockdown in the round. Let's face it, knockdown rounds take place significantly less often than non-knockdown rounds... so IMO you have to give credit for that knockdown in the form of a 10-8 score. I have no problem though if a round is incredibly one sided in favor of the knocked down fighter to score it 10-9 if the only thing that happened was a flash knockdown and the other guy was able to accomplish nothing else outside of those 2 seconds.

Knockdowns however in my view are the least of our worries with the 10 point must system. I think that rounds should be scored 10-8 MUCH more frequently without knockdowns than they currently are.

I think a close round should be scored 10-9 to who you believe won it, but if there is no question who won a round and it was clearly a dominant round (remember dominant doesn't mean a fighter had to be hurt) it should be carded 10-8. If a fighter is unable to accomplish anything in a round, I say they get 8 points not 9. I think plenty of rounds in Hopkins-Trinidad, Calzaghe-Lacy, Mayweather-Gatti, lots of Roy Jones' fights during his prime, or even lesser fights like Lewis-Tua were rounds where one guy clearly wasn't able to do a damn thing, and those rounds should be 10-8.

I look at it this way. In a 12 round fight say one fighter wins the first 6 rounds clearly but the other fighter was able to be competitive. Then the tables turn and the other fighter sweeps the final 6 but is completely dominant and the first fighter is unable to do anything in any of the rounds. Using our current system with no knockdowns or point deductions the fight would result in a 114-114 draw. If the last 6 rounds were carded 10-8 we would arrive at a 114-108 score and have a clear winner.

Our current system results in what, maybe 95% of rounds being scored 10-9? Do 95% of the rounds you guys watch look the same and show the same level of one fighter beating the other? They don't to me. 10-9 if a guy wins a close round, 10-8 if a guy wins a dominant round, 10-7 for a knockdown, etc is the way I feel it should go.

When we start dealing in shades of grey, subjectivity ruins scoring.

Personally i never score 10 - 10 rounds. If there are there are multiple knockdowns... 10 - 7. And even if a guy is taking a beating, if he pulls out a knockdown at the end of teh round, its 10 - 8 for whoever scored the knockdown, i'm not down with this 10-9 business in those scenarios

I, too, like the idea of more leeway in making use of a 10-8 score. Some of the concerns about it may be addressed if the judging panels were expanded from 3 to 5, at least in the championship fights. The nearly universal 10-9 system ignores so much of the qualitative factors of each round.

I see it like this.

If I swee a fighter dominating a round big time and then gets knocked down. I'll score it even 9-9. -1 for the knockdown.

If a fighter doesnt get knocked down but gets brutally battered ala Mayweather-Gatti round 6 in a round that is not competitive at all..then 10-8.

I think if someone is "brutally battered" in a dominant round it should be scored 10-7.

My scoring proposition:

10-10 = dead even round, can't pick a winner.
10-9 = you felt one fighter won the round.
10-8 = you felt one fighter dominanted the round, the other guy got nothing of merit done.
10-7 = one figher was knocked down or was dominated getting hurt badly while accomplishing nothing himself in the round.
10-6 = 2 knockdowns, etc.

If you take a fight like Pacquiao-Marquez for example that ended in a draw, most people felt that Marquez pulled it out by a few points. Using my scoring criteria above, Pacquiao would have had a 10-5 round in the 1st, but Marquez would have had multiple 10-8 rounds toward the middle of the fight (the 6th comes to mind for sure). The judge that carded that fight a 113-113 draw would likely have come up with more like a 113-110 Marquez score.

If there is no knockdown I never score a round 10-8...I know this may be an unpopular way to view things, but if a guy is getting beat down and summons the will power to stay on his feet, I think he should be rewarded.

This is a great topic Jack started by the way. Now I'm starting to see how all of our scorecards can differ so greatly when we have post fight discussions on this board.

You scored the Moorer Holyfield rematch correctly and I agree with you on the Douglas Tyson fight as well, all to often judges automaticly give a 10-8 round when a fighter is dropped its as if suddenly that is the only thing that matters, in the Amateurs a knock down is only one single point its just as good as one effective Jab.
Now I am not saying we should look at knock downs like that because I like to see cleaner harder shots and I favor them for the most part, However I think over the years the judging is slowly getting better, its just a matter of time before these old fuckers pass away and open up opportunitys for younger judges who see things the way we the fans do.
But it all honesty it seems like they are taking their time dying already.

I think I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. The only other thing I would specifically highlight is the difference between a "flash", "regular", and "brutal" knockdown. They need to be considered with different weight and in context of the round and fight.

I think the biggest flaws are related to corruption, not expert interpretation.