# Boxing Scoring FAQ and Discussion



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

I put together a brief overview and FAQ on Scoring, which sometimes can be confusing for newer fans of the sport. I hope it helps increase understanding and the quality of discussion at CHB on the topic. :good

If you are the TL;DR type, jump to the bottom of the post and reference the FAQ.

For a more detailed understanding, you may reference the Association of Boxing Commission's Judges Certification Handbook located Here:
http://www.abcboxing.com/documents/abcboxing_officials_certification_program.htm
There is a lot of great info there.



> Professional Boxing matches are scored using the *"10-Point Must System"*. This system assigns ten points to the winner of each round. The loser receives nine points for a close round, eight points if he was knocked down or dominated, and seven points if he was knocked down twice. If a round is even and neither boxer was knocked down, both boxers receive 10 points. If each boxer was knocked down once, the knockdowns are disregarded and the winner of the round receives 10 points, while the loser receives nine points.
> 
> Each round is typically scored by the following criteria:
> 
> ...


Here are a few questions I've seen come up:

*Q:*


> *Does a judge have to honor calls made by the referee (i.e. calling a knockdown that the judge saw was clearly a slip or docking a point without a warning)?*


*A: Yes. If a referee makes a call on a knockdown, the judge has to honor it on his/her scorecard. The same goes with point deductions for fouls called by the referee.*



> *If fighter A scores a knockdown, but fighter B seems to win the rest of the round, is it scored 10-9 in stead of 10-8?*


*A: No. Fighter B would need to completely dominate the rest of the round to earn 9 points rather than 8. Not just "win the rest of the round."*

*Q:*


> *Is there such a thing as an "even round?"*


*A: Yes. Although rarely used by professional judges, awarding 10 points to both fighters in an evenly contested round is perfectly legal and acceptable under the rules. *

_*Q:*_


> _*If both fighters are knocked down in the same round, how is the round scored?*_


*A: If each boxer was knocked down once in the same round, the knockdowns are disregarded and the winner of the round receives 10 points, while the loser receives 9 points.*

_*Q:*_


> _*If "Fighter A" scores one knockdown, but "Fighter B" scores 2 knockdowns in the same round, how is the round scored?*_


*A: 10-8 in favor of Fighter B. In terms of scoring, knockdowns cancel each other out. When Fighter A scored one knockdown, the score for this round went from 10-7 to 10-8. *

_*Q:*_


> *If in a round with no knockdowns a fighter clearly wins the round but is docked a point for a foul, how is the round scored?*


*A: 9-9. An exception is only applied to the "10-point must" part of the system when the referee calls time and docks a point from a fighter for committing a foul (repeated low blows, intentional head butts, etc...).*

This probably only covers a fraction of the rules of Boxing scoring. If you want to really get into the details, you can check out the link at the top of this post. Or just discuss it here!

Thanks to Booradly for RTD

Thanks to Havik for answering "Does a judge have to honor ref's calls?"

:hat


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

Thanks for that mate. 

I got a question. What happends in a round where niether fighter shows any of the 4 scoring criteria. I thinking of rounds in the Bellew v Chilemba & Froch v Dirrell fights. The agression from Froch/Bellew is not effective and there not landing clean punches, but Chilemba/Dirrell are on there bike, there not showing defensive skill there just running, and neither man is displaying ring generalship.

Can you score a round against a fighter for showing a lack of any of the 4?


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Thanks for that mate.
> 
> I got a question. What happends in a round where niether fighter shows any of the 4 scoring criteria. I thinking of rounds in the Bellew v Chilemba & Froch v Dirrell fights. The agression from Froch/Bellew is not effective and there not landing clean punches, but Chilemba/Dirrell are on there bike, there not showing defensive skill there just running, and neither man is displaying ring generalship.
> 
> Can you score a round against a fighter for showing a lack of any of the 4?


You're welcome! :good

Without actually looking at those rounds, they sound like 10-10 rounds to me, however, some judges may disagree that Dirrel/Chilemba aren't showing some ring generalship and defense by using their legs and the ring to stay out of range. Defense IS a scoring criteria, don't forget.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> You're welcome! :good
> 
> Without actually looking at those rounds, they sound like 10-10 rounds to me, however, some judges may disagree that Dirrel/Chilemba aren't showing some ring generalship and defense by using their legs and the ring to stay out of range. Defense IS a scoring criteria, don't forget.


There is a difference between running and just staying out of range and defence.

But can you score seven 10-10 rounds in a fight?


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

:good cheers, but ive always wondered are judges bound to honour referee's calls on knockdowns? what if it was clearly a slip and everyone but the ref saw that, but he called a knockdown, do judges have to score that? im not saying they shouldnt as it would set a crazy precedent but always wondered


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

JamieC said:


> :good cheers, but ive always wondered are judges bound to honour referee's calls on knockdowns? what if it was clearly a slip and everyone but the ref saw that, but he called a knockdown, do judges have to score that? im not saying they shouldnt as it would set a crazy precedent but always wondered


That is a great question. I have searched everywhere I could think of for an official definitive answer to this and I haven't been able to come up with anything. Furthermore, I remember Harold Lederman saying during an HBO broadcast that judges ARE required to honor the ref's call, even if the call appears erroneous. On the other hand, there was a recent Showtime broadcast where Al Bernstein stated flatly that Judges ARE NOT required to honor the ref's call and can score at their own discretion regarding apparently erroneous knockdowns. So what I'll do is throw this particular question back out to you or anyone else who might be able to find something official on the matter. If anyone has special insight on this or is able to find specific examples backing up one side or the other, your contribution to this thread would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

My understanding has always been that judges ARE supposed to score KDs that the ref gives even if they feel it was a slip.


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> That is a great question. I have searched everywhere I could think of for an official definitive answer to this and I haven't been able to come up with anything. Furthermore, I remember Harold Lederman saying during an HBO broadcast that judges ARE required to honor the ref's call, even if the call appears erronious. On the other hand, there was a recent Showtime broadcast where Al Bernstein stated flatly that Judges ARE NOT requured to honor the ref's call and can score at their own discretion regarding apparently erronious knockdowns. So what I'll do is throw this particular question back out to you or anyone else who might be able to find something official on the matter. If anyone has special insight on this or is able to find specific examples backing up one side or the other, your contribution to this thread woukd be greatly appreciated.


:good cheers mate, i guess if there's no official ruling then maybe they aren't required to but maybe are heavily encouraged to?


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

GazOC said:


> My understanding has always been that judges ARE supposed to score KDs that the ref gives even if they feel it was a slip.


:good cheers Gaz


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

GazOC said:


> My understanding has always been that judges ARE supposed to score KDs that the ref gives even if they feel it was a slip.


As has been my own understanding... however, I have never seen anything making this official. When I do, I will add it to the original post as a frequently asked question.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2013)

Is there is a difference between running and just staying out of range and defense?

Can a fighter lose a round for being to negative?


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Here's my question.

Fighter A completely dominates a round, hurts his opponent on several occasions, but DOESNT score a knockdown. 10-8 yeah.

Fight A completely dominates a round, hurting his opponent on several occasions, AND SCORES a knockdown in the final 10 seconds of the round. Still a 10-8. 

Very unfair in my opinion.

Thanks tho, good info there


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Thats the problem with only really using 2-3 points of the 10.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Vano-irons said:


> Here's my question.
> 
> Fighter A completely dominates a round, hurts his opponent on several occasions, but DOESNT score a knockdown. 10-8 yeah.
> 
> ...


You could actually make a case for 10-7 if it's already a 10-8 round and then there is a knockdown. You say "unfair", some will say "subjective."


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Is there is a difference between running and just staying out of range and defense?
> 
> Can a fighter lose a round for being to negative?


In both questions you asked, it depends on what the other boxer did in the round.


----------



## Havik (Jun 4, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> As has been my own understanding... however, I have never seen anything making this official. When I do, I will add it to the original post as a frequently asked question.


I found this, from the Association of Boxing Commissions:



> Knockdowns
> 
> Judges shall deduct points for knockdowns only when they are called as such by the referee.
> 
> ...


http://www.abcboxing.com/documents/abcboxing_regulatory_guidelines.htm


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Havik said:


> I found this, from the Association of Boxing Commissions:
> 
> http://www.abcboxing.com/documents/abcboxing_regulatory_guidelines.htm


Great find! About as definitive as it gets.


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

It only makes sense that the judges rule what the ref says. The ref has the best view of what happens and if it's in any way subjective the judges are going to have to take the refs word for it.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> You could actually make a case for 10-7 if it's already a 10-8 round and then there is a knockdown. You say "unfair", some will say "subjective."


It's not subjective. Everyone pretty much agreed that Maidana was awarded a 10-8 round against Khan in the 10th, but if he would have put him down in the final 20 seconds, or still would have only been a 10-8.

I know there is a case that a 10-7 round could be scored, but I'm not sure that has ever been the case


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Vano-irons said:


> It's not subjective. Everyone pretty much agreed that Maidana was awarded a 10-8 round against Khan in the 10th, but if he would have put him down in the final 20 seconds, or still would have only been a 10-8.
> 
> I know there is a case that a 10-7 round could be scored, but I'm not sure that has ever been the case


You just said it wasn't subjective and then went on to make my counter argument for me.

Nobody would have argued if one of the judges had actually scored it 10-7. It would have been fair and the judges were free to do so at their discretion. But the knockdown didn't actually occur in that case, and so its a bad example.


----------



## sugarshane_24 (Apr 20, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> As has been my own understanding... however, I have never seen anything making this official. When I do, I will add it to the original post as a frequently asked question.


On the other side of the coin, judges can also disregard a KD call if they knew it was a miss on the ref's part.

See Pac-Mosley. :lp


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

I'd have scored that round 10-7 with a KD. If a fighter does well enough to score a 10-8 without a KD but gets one on top of that then I have no problem giving a 10-7. Like you say though Vano, I've no idea how often this happens in the official scoring.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Re: honouring the referee's call, Bernstein is incorrect according to the ABC rules. The judges are there to judge, not officiate. 

Even if they chose not to mark the score, the commission official should do it for them on submission of the card for scoring.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

sugarshane_24 said:


> On the other side of the coin, judges can also disregard a KD call if they knew it was a miss on the ref's part.
> 
> See Pac-Mosley. :lp


They scored it incorrectly then. Judges struggle enough seeing what's going on during the fight, never mind officiating it too.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2013)

If everybody follows a strict criteria, how can scoring a fight be subjective?


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> If everybody follows a strict criteria, how can scoring a fight be subjective?


The judges are human, that's how. Some judges prefer certain styles over others, some judges give more stock in certain criteria over others, some judges are swayed by the crowd. Judges are imperfect and human. There are some fights that are so easy to score that everyone agrees. There are some fights that are so close that the human element is just enough to sway the fight to one side. Setting criteria won't take subjectivity out of it. The only way to do that is to have computers scoring the fight.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> If everybody follows a strict criteria, how can scoring a fight be subjective?


People see different things in fights thats why you rarely see 3 identical cards even when the 3 judges are (supposedly!) professional.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> The judges are human, that's how. Some judges prefer certain styles over others, some judges give more stock in certain criteria over others, some judges are swayed by the crowd. Judges are imperfect and human. There are some fights that are so easy to score that everyone agrees. There are some fights that are so close that the human element is just enough to sway the fight to one side. Setting criteria won't take subjectivity out of it. The only way to do that is to have computers scoring the fight.


Should judges prefer a certain style? None of the 4 aspects should take president over another right?


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Should judges prefer a certain style? None of the 4 aspects should take president over another right?


No, they shouldn't prefer a certain style, and no none of the other aspects should be more important than the others.


----------



## PBFred (Jun 4, 2013)

Hey biotch, does our ban bet apply here too?!


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

PBFred said:


> Hey biotch, does our ban bet apply here too?!


This ain't ESB foo!


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> You just said it wasn't subjective and then went on to make my counter argument for me.
> 
> Nobody would have argued if one of the judges had actually scored it 10-7. It would have been fair and the judges were free to do so at their discretion. But the knockdown didn't actually occur in that case, and so its a bad example.


I'm not saying people would argue if a 10-7 round, and I'm not using any example (I mentioned Madiana / Khan round 10 as its a clear 10-8 round without a KD), what I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure no judge has ever/would scored a round like that 10-7, which in my opinion is criminally unfair.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Vano-irons said:


> I'm not saying people would argue if a 10-7 round, and I'm not using any example (I mentioned Madiana / Khan round 10 as its a clear 10-8 round without a KD), what I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure no judge has ever/would scored a round like that 10-7, which in my opinion is criminally unfair.


I would want to be more sure than "pretty sure." I've been trying to find examples.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

By all means if you can find a case of it feel free to post it. But to my mind no judge has ever scored a round like the one I mentioned 10-7


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

@Jay is a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks for the sticky!


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> The judges are human, that's how. Some judges prefer certain styles over others, some judges give more stock in certain criteria over others, some judges are swayed by the crowd. Judges are imperfect and human. There are some fights that are so easy to score that everyone agrees. There are some fights that are so close that the human element is just enough to sway the fight to one side. Setting criteria won't take subjectivity out of it. The only way to do that is to have computers scoring the fight.


Plus judges have different views of the action from ringside. When fans get outraged when the judges score the fight differently they usually don't take into account that they aren't watching the live television broadcast.



Juiceboxbiotch said:


> No, they shouldn't prefer a certain style, and no *none of the other aspects should be more important than the others*.


Clean effective punching always seems to be given more stock than the other three though, and that's been said by trained judges.


----------



## des3995 (Jun 4, 2013)

Glad to see this thread reincarnated. It was one of my favorites long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

@Vanos-Irons

One judge actually scored Round 9 Ward-Gatti as a 10-7 round; which given the two to one edge in ass kickings and the kd is entirely justifiable. 

Perhaps a better example of what you're talking about is the fact one judge scored Round 15 Chacon-Limon IV 10-7. Chacon hurt Bazooka several times in the last round, and scored a kd in the last 10 seconds to seal the deal.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

@Vano-irons


Drew101 said:


> @Vanos-Irons
> 
> One judge actually scored Round 9 Ward-Gatti as a 10-7 round; which given the two to one edge in ass kickings and the kd is entirely justifiable.
> 
> Perhaps a better example of what you're talking about is the fact one judge scored Round 15 Chacon-Limon IV 10-7. Chacon hurt Bazooka several times in the last round, and scored a kd in the last 10 seconds to seal the deal.


Thanks for finding that. After some research on this I was only able to find a bit of a clarification of the scoring rules that basically says a 10-7 round should only be scored when there are 2 knockdowns. The judge who scored round 9 of Gatti/Ward 10-7 was most likely in the wrong. Gatti was knocked down once but Ward was hurt in the round as well. Should definitely have been 10-8 anyway, as there wasn't necessarily "domination" happening. As far as Chacon/Limon, that was when the 10 point must system was still pretty young. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the rules were slightly different then or that the judge was new to the system.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Yeah, round 9 of Gatti - Ward doesn't really fit the mild as Ward was hurt himself as mentioned


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> Yeah, round 9 of Gatti - Ward doesn't really fit the mild as Ward was hurt himself as mentioned


I think given the fact that Gatti looked on the verge of collapse at two separate points, including the final 40 seconds or so, _after_ getting his clock cleaned early and dropped by a body-shot, means that 10-7 is within the boundaries of reason. Still, I called it 10-8. Gatti _did_ hurt Ward, after all.

Round 15 of Chacon-Limon IV is by far a better example of a 10-7 round with only one kd, though. The round could have been 10-8 anyway, since Chacon was dominant. The kd was just the proverbial icing on the cake.


----------



## Barlivia (Jun 8, 2012)

Something that I was thinking as I was watching the introductions last night of the fight from brooklyn:

The rules of boxing appear on screen and you see "only the referee can stop the bout" or as I saw last night "only the referee or the doctor can stop the fight". Obviously this isn't entirely true a corner always has the power to stop the fight and pull their guy out at anytime? Who else would have been able to stop a fight in the past that this rule came into being?

If a doctor tells a referee inbetween rounds that a fighter is in no condition to continue due to a cut or whatever is the referee always obliged to stop the fight?


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Barlivia said:


> Something that I was thinking as I was watching the introductions last night of the fight from brooklyn:
> 
> The rules of boxing appear on screen and you see "only the referee can stop the bout" or as I saw last night "only the referee or the doctor can stop the fight". Obviously this isn't entirely true a corner always has the power to stop the fight and pull their guy out at anytime? Who else would have been able to stop a fight in the past that this rule came into being?
> 
> If a doctor tells a referee inbetween rounds that a fighter is in no condition to continue due to a cut or whatever is the referee always obliged to stop the fight?


In these commissions, you will also hear in the announcements after fights "On the advice of the corner, the referree stops the fight..." and "On the advice of the ring doctor, the referee stops the fight..." I believe that in the commissions where only the referee can stop the fight, yes, he can overrule the doctor. But they will normally just follow the advice of the doctor since that is what he is there for. I'm sure someone can find an example of a ref overruling the ring side physician :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

my issue with a 10-8 round without a knockdown is that it takes away from the credit you should give to a guy for staying on there feet. not losing that point is the incentive for that fighter. if the fighters know judges are going to score 10-8 rounds you will see them taking knees all the time.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> my issue with a 10-8 round without a knockdown is that it takes away from the credit you should give to a guy for staying on there feet. not losing that point is the incentive for that fighter. if the fighters know judges are going to score 10-8 rounds you will see them taking knees all the time.


But that coin has 2 sides. If a fighter dominated a round so thoroughly that he deserves an extra point, aren't you taking away his credit in stead? It could be argued that it serves as incentive to really do a good job dominating the round. I'm ok with the occasional 10-8 with no knockdown.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> But that coin has 2 sides. If a fighter dominated a round so thoroughly that he deserves an extra point, aren't you taking away his credit in stead? It could be argued that it serves as incentive to really do a good job dominating the round. I'm ok with the occasional 10-8 with no knockdown.


So what happens if a fighter dominates a round and scores a knockdown. Do you score it 10-7?


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

QUOTE:

"Clean Punching - Punches landed cleanly in the legal scoring area of the other fighter on the knuckle part of the glove. Punches landed to the back of the head, the rear torso, or below the beltline are not legal. "Slapping" or "Backhanded" punches are not legal, and glancing or partially blocked punches should not be counted in scoring."

- So punching your opponents arms, shoulders, or gloves counts? These are all legal areas.

IMO, the first two SHOULD count, as they wear your opponent down, but most people I know do NOT count them. Refence reaction to the recent Pauilie - Broner fight.

No one should count hitting the gloves, yet that would be the strict interpretation of that rule.

Another problem: We all know you can't hit behind the head or body, but were exactly does the "behind" part start? (Let's ask David Price!)

-----------

But anyway, I'm pretty sure these rules are from the MDQ. They are not the official rules of any of the governing bodies, which can make any changes, additions, or omissions they want to. Sadly, the official rules of most governing bodies are purposely vague. IMO this is done to make it easier to deliver BS decisions.


----------



## des3995 (Jun 4, 2013)

Ok. Do you guys sometimes find yourselves scoring a round for or against a fighter based on how it compares to a previous round or rounds?

For instance, Piston Honda was being beat to the punch by Soda Popinski, outlanded with power shots and in general for the 1st 4 rounds of a fight. But in round 5, he fights fairly evenly, but manages to absorb slightly more punishment despite his best effort. How much more inclined, if at all, would you be to give Honda the round?

I've noticed just that in many fights, and even some RBRs, people are willing to even things up a bit.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> So what happens if a fighter dominates a round and scores a knockdown. Do you score it 10-7?


According to the Association of Boxing Commissions Judging Certification Handbook (located here):http://www.abcboxing.com/documents/abcboxing_officials_certification_program.htm
A 10/7 round should only be scored when there are two knockdowns in the round. There were some examples provided in this very thread of judges scoring 10-7 in rounds where there were only a single knockdown, but it is my opinion that those judges actually got it wrong and should have scored the rounds 10-8 according to the rules. Round 9 of Gatti vs. Ward and round 15 of Chacon vs. Limon were the examples given here. Here is an excerpt of the handbook, I've up-fonted the part relevant to your question.



> *VIII. SCORING CRITERIA*
> The Ten-point must system shall be in effect. The winner of the round will receive ten points and the loser will receive nine points or less (minus any point deductions).
> · 10/9 From a *"close"* to *"moderate"* margin
> · 10/8 *EXTREMELY DECISIVE* (without a knockdown)
> ...


I'm going to add the link to the ABC Judges Certification Handbook in the original post. It's got a lot of good info.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> QUOTE:
> 
> "Clean Punching - Punches landed cleanly in the legal scoring area of the other fighter on the knuckle part of the glove. Punches landed to the back of the head, the rear torso, or below the beltline are not legal. "Slapping" or "Backhanded" punches are not legal, and glancing or partially blocked punches should not be counted in scoring."
> 
> - So punching your opponents arms, shoulders, or gloves counts? These are all legal areas.



Just because it is legal to hit your opponent in those places, doesn't mean the blows are _scored_. It just means the blows aren't considered fouls. You actually answered your own question with the part in red.



Cableaddict said:


> IMO, the first two SHOULD count, as they wear your opponent down, but most people I know do NOT count them. Refence reaction to the recent Pauilie - Broner fight.



Just because they aren't scored, doesn't mean they don't count. A prime example of this basic concept of boxing scoring is that you don't "score" a knockout on the cards, but it sure counts.




Cableaddict said:


> No one should count hitting the gloves, yet that would be the strict interpretation of that rule.



Refer to the part in red above.




Cableaddict said:


> Another problem: We all know you can't hit behind the head or body, but were exactly does the "behind" part start? (Let's ask David Price!)




Here is another excerpt from the ABC Judges Certification Handbook detailing the scoring zone, which as you can see, includes the shoulders, as you mentioned:



> *III. SCORING ZONE*
> Every judge should be aware of the scoring zone. The method for establishing the scoring zone starts at the top center of the head, with an imaginary line continuing down the sides of the head through the ears, down to and including the shoulders to the naval and hipbones. Caution should be taken in using the beltline, due to boxers keeping the trunks high above the navel. Any punch delivered outside of the scoring zone should not be considered when scoring the bout.
> The test to measure the awarding of points for "offensive boxing" should be the number of direct, clean punches delivered with the knuckle part of the closed glove on any part of the scoring zone of the opponent's body above the belt line. The judges should also consider the effect of blows received versus the number of punches delivered. Punches that are blocked or deflected should not be considered in tabulating your score. Blocked or deflected punches that land foul are not to be considered fouls in the awarding of points at the end of the round.
> In most cases the arms are considered defensive weapons. However, judges must take into consideration the shoulders of a boxer as being in the scoring zone.






Cableaddict said:


> But anyway, I'm pretty sure these rules are from the MDQ. They are not the official rules of any of the governing bodies, which ca make any chances, additions, or omissions they want to. Sadly, the official rules of most governing bodies are purposely vague. IMO this is done to make it easier to deliver BS decisions.


Fair points. :cheers


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Just because it is legal to hit your opponent in those places, doesn't mean the blows are _scored_. It just means the blows aren't considered fouls. You actually answered your own question with the part in red.


Of course I did. - That was my point!



Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Here is another excerpt from the ABC Judges Certification Handbook detailing the scoring zone, which as you can see, includes the shoulders, as you mentioned:


Excellent! Thanks for posting this. This is exactly the same as the rules in the Ams. 
- But Two important questions:

1: Is there a copy of this handbook, available online? I've never seen it. I've never even seen it mentioned.

2: Do any of the boxing organizations actually claim to follow these rules? (I mean, who exactly is the "ABC?" What power do they have, vs an Arum or a Haymon?) My guess is no, and that's the main problem. None of the powers-that-be want clear rules, because that makes it harder to get away with robberies.

But note all the (purposeful?) ambiguities, even here:

"In most cases the arms are considered defensive weapons. However, judges must take into consideration the shoulders of a boxer as being in the scoring zone." 

- Judges MAY? WTF does that mean. It either counts or it doesn't. - IMO it does, since it wears down the opponents power just like body shots do.


"The test to measure the awarding of points for "offensive boxing" should be the number of direct, clean punches delivered &#8230;"
- Fine, but they don't define what a "clean" punch is. How hard would that be?

Also, an indirect blow to the chin doesn't count? So if I throw an OH right at you, and you partially block it with your glove, but it continues on to your chin and I KYTFO, it doesn't count? That's the strict interpretation of what is written there.
--------------------------------

NOTE:

According to these rules, which again may not actually be in force during any pro bout:

1: David Price was not KO'd by Thompson.

2: Vitlai Klitschko should never, ever win by decision, since few of his punches land with the knuckle part of the glove.

3: Paulie scored a shitload more punches than Broner did. Some fans claim that many of Paulie's shots hit Broners shoulders.

Well, YEAH:  quote: "Also note, they allow for points when you hit your opponent's shoulder&#8230;"

-------------------------


And this is why scoring is such a mess. Even if (and I laugh as I type this) the ref & judges were actually trying to follow the ABC's rules, there are massive ambiguities built-into those rules.


----------



## iamasadlittleboy (Jan 29, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> QUOTE:
> 
> - So punching your opponents arms, shoulders, or gloves counts? These are all legal areas.












Personally I'd score that despite it being "blocked"


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2013)

@Juiceboxbiotch

Do any of the 4 categories take precident? Is there an order?


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> @Juiceboxbiotch
> 
> Do any of the 4 categories take precident? Is there an order?


I think effective punching is/should be the most important, and the others should fall behind in no order.


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

The guy in my avatar, Kid Galahad, was KD'd in the 1st round vs Jason Booth. He was clearly winning the round until a flash KD right at the end of the round & then went on to dominate the fight & by a wide margin.

2 judges scored the fight 118-110 & 118-111 but the 3rd judge (Ian John Lewis) scored the fight 120-109. I assume he scored the 1st 10-10 but Galahad was awarded 10 points for all 12 rounds despite being KD'd (it was a legitimate KD) at the end of a round he had decisively won prior to the KD.

:think


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

DrMo said:


> The guy in my avatar, Kid Galahad, was KD'd in the 1st round vs Jason Booth. He was clearly winning the round until a flash KD right at the end of the round & then went on to dominate the fight & by a wide margin.
> 
> 2 judges scored the fight 118-110 & 118-111 but the 3rd judge (Ian John Lewis) scored the fight 120-109. I assume he scored the 1st 10-10 but Galahad was awarded 10 points for all 12 rounds despite being KD'd (it was a legitimate KD) at the end of a round he had decisively won prior to the KD.
> 
> :think


The question is answered in the FAQ on the main post... but the way you describe it it sounds like Ian John Lewis blew the score for the first round. It should have been 10-9 for Booth. Judges are human and they do make mistakes from time to time. It's pretty unacceptable for someone who isn't familiar with the rules to be judging a pro fight, but it happens all over the world. It's one of the main problems our sport has.


----------



## mick557 (Jun 6, 2013)

WBA looking to implement half-point scoring.

http://wbanews.com/artman/publish/n..._be_used_in_the_Rossel_vs_Z_iga_in_Lima.shtml


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

mick557 said:


> WBA looking to implement half-point scoring.
> 
> http://wbanews.com/artman/publish/n..._be_used_in_the_Rossel_vs_Z_iga_in_Lima.shtml


:think


----------



## KO KIDD (ESB EX-Patriot) (Jun 3, 2013)

What constitutes earning a point back after a knockdown or deduction?


Is it merely winning the round despite the knockdown or foul deduction

or is it dominating the round?

Also what qualifies as a 10-8 minus a knockdown or deduction?

Ive only done this one time and it was one of the early rounds in Ortiz vs Berto where Berto was wobbly the whole round and spent most of the time on the ropes eating leather and hardly got off anything

I scored it 10-8 for the shape Berto was in, the power and quality plus volume of Ortiz shots against the absence of any significance


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Thanks @*Bogotazo for clearing all the spam posts! *:thumbsup


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

I miss when people actually discussed scoring in this thread...


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

So how about those Figueroa/Belmontes score cards eh?


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> So how about those Figueroa/Belmontes score cards eh?


I had it 116-112 from ringside.

after the fight Belmontes was sitting 6 seats away from me. everyone including myself came over to him and told him he won. Figueroa came and sat near as well than got moved to the ringside seats for the Thurman fight.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Rob said:


> I had it 116-112 from ringside.
> 
> after the fight Belmontes was sitting 6 seats away from me. everyone including myself came over to him and told him he won. Figueroa came and sat near as well than got moved to the ringside seats for the Thurman fight.


I looked through this thread and can't find any of your questions that went unanswered. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Rob said:


> I had it 116-112 from ringside.
> 
> after the fight Belmontes was sitting 6 seats away from me. everyone including myself came over to him and told him he won. Figueroa came and sat near as well than got moved to the ringside seats for the Thurman fight.


A fair score, by the way. I had the same score watching it on TV. 118-110 for Figueroa is hilarious (in a really bad way).


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2014)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> A fair score, by the way. I had the same score watching it on TV. 118-110 for Figueroa is hilarious (in a really bad way).


yeh absolute joke.

I think it was the question about whether or not there is an order the the 4 aspects of scoring.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Rob said:


> yeh absolute joke.
> 
> I think it was the question about whether or not there is an order the the 4 aspects of scoring.





Rob said:


> @*Juiceboxbiotch*
> 
> Do any of the 4 categories take precident? Is there an order?





Juiceboxbiotch said:


> I think effective punching is/should be the most important, and the others should fall behind in no order.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> A fair score, by the way. I had the same score watching it on TV. 118-110 for Figueroa is hilarious (in a really bad way).


Hey, I didn´t even see this thread before, good thread man.

I just wanna say that I read and heard before, from professional judges, that the 4 criteria system is obsolete, is not used anymore by judges in scoring for a while now. Clean punching is above anything and they score based on who did more damage. Basically who landed the best, more signifcant punches..

Harold talks about this. Go to 1:11.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Vic said:


> Hey, I didn´t even see this thread before, good thread man.
> 
> I just wanna say that I read and heard before, from professional judges, that the 4 criteria system is obsolete, is not used anymore by judges in scoring for a while now. Clean punching is above anything and they score based on who did more damage. Basically who landed the best, more signifcant punches..
> 
> Harold talks about this. Go to 1:11.


Great find, that one. Thanks!

All I could ever find officially was what I linked in post #1 . If you find any official judges' rule book or another official source that says the same, I will edit the post. :good


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Great find, that one. Thanks!
> 
> All I could ever find officially was what I linked in post #1 . If you find any official judges' rule book or another official source that says the same, I will edit the post. :good


I will try to find something later, man...


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Provodnikov vs. Algieri had some interesting scoring. It was a polarizing fight to score because you had two wildly different styles and the fighters were scoring in two very different ways. Provodnikov was without a doubt doing the damage in the fight. Applying relentless pressure and landing harder punches that seemed to take more effect. Algieri, on the other hand used a lot of ring generalship and boxed off the jab very well. He would sneak in left uppercuts from the outside and move. He made Provodnikov miss a lot. In the end I can't blame Max Deluca, Dan Rafael, Steve Weisfeld, etc... for scoring the fight for Provodnikov because I see where they are coming from. But after looking at the punch stats (Algieri outlanded Provodnikov in every round except the 1st, and outlanded him in every category over the course of the fight), you have to take your hat off *to the judges who scored it for Algieri.

*typo edit


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

@Vic
The scoring of Provodnikov vs. Algieri kinda shows you that some judges prescribe to what Lederman says in that video, and a lot of judges don't. Yeah?


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> @Vic
> The scoring of Provodnikov vs. Algieri kinda shows you that some judges prescribe to what Lederman says in that video, and a lot of judges don't. Yeah?


I still couldn´t watch the fight, brother. 
Can´t comment then, but it´s not suprising, they should be more clear about what is the right way to judge, it is just too subjetive this way, any judge can have his own criteria and that´s it...


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Vic said:


> I still couldn´t watch the fight, brother.
> Can´t comment then, but it´s not suprising, they should be more clear about what is the right way to judge, it is just too subjetive this way, any judge can have his own criteria and that´s it...


Many have come to this same conclusion. Unfortunately, that requires either greater collaboration between state commissions, or just one commission across the board. For Provo/Algieri, the only guy who scored the fight for Ruslan was Max DeLuca, a California judge. Compared to the 2 who scored it for Algieri, from New York. On the surface that seems like a bias for the hometown fighter, but in reality it is probably just a difference of preference in the judges and difference of training from one commission to another.


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

Neither Canelo nor Lara is American but they had to put the American anthem somewhere in there atsch


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

Why did my post end up in this thread? :lol:
Anyway what happens if one judge has fighter A winning, another judge fighter B and the third judge has it a draw? I assume it would be some kind of draw, right? But it wouldn't be an unanimous draw, nor a split draw what would it be called?


----------



## allenko1 (Jun 27, 2012)

PivotPunch said:


> Why did my post end up in this thread? :lol:
> Anyway what happens if one judge has fighter A winning, another judge fighter B and the third judge has it a draw? I assume it would be some kind of draw, right? But it wouldn't be an unanimous draw, nor a split draw what would it be called?


Yep. A three-way split...


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

PivotPunch said:


> Why did my post end up in this thread? :lol:
> Anyway what happens if one judge has fighter A winning, another judge fighter B and the third judge has it a draw? I assume it would be some kind of draw, right? But it wouldn't be an unanimous draw, nor a split draw what would it be called?


It's called a Split Draw. It happens.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2014)

@Juiceboxbiotch does one of the criteria have priority the others?


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Rob said:


> @*Juiceboxbiotch* does one of the criteria have priority the others?


I haven't been able to find anything official on that one Rob. It's a great question. The way I score fights, effective punching is always above the rest... but that's just me, an untrained, amateur couch judge. If you are able to find anything that explicitly states anything about one criteria being more important than the others, post it up brother. I will add it to the original post. :good


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> I haven't been able to find anything official on that one Rob. It's a great question. The way I score fights, effective punching is always above the rest... but that's just me, an untrained, amateur couch judge. If you are able to find anything that explicitly states anything about one criteria being more important than the others, post it up brother. I will add it to the original post. :good


For me this is the issue with fight scoring at this point in time. There is no consistent understand of what the rules are. Some just focus on effective punching, others heavily value defense, others factor in all 4 criteria.

From everything that I can see, all 4 criteria are equal, because nowhere does it specifically list clean effective punching being the most important.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Rob said:


> For me this is the issue with fight scoring at this point in time. There is no consistent understand of what the rules are. Some just focus on effective punching, others heavily value defense, others factor in all 4 criteria.
> 
> From everything that I can see, all 4 criteria are equal, because nowhere does it specifically list clean effective punching being the most important.


Sounds fair enough to me!


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Rob said:


> For me this is the issue with fight scoring at this point in time. There is no consistent understand of what the rules are. Some just focus on effective punching, others heavily value defense, others factor in all 4 criteria.
> 
> From everything that I can see, all 4 criteria are equal, because nowhere does it specifically list clean effective punching being the most important.


Harold Lederman often states that clean punching is given the highest precedence. There's a good video with him explaining it.

It IS simple. Who did the most damage in the round? Who landed the most effective punches? Volume shouldn't come into it unless the gap is so huge it's clear.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

dftaylor said:


> Harold Lederman often states that clean punching is given the highest precedence. There's a good video with him explaining it.
> 
> It IS simple. Who did the most damage in the round? Who landed the most effective punches? Volume shouldn't come into it unless the gap is so huge it's clear.


I know the video your talking about, but even in that he basically says he is ignoring the actual written rules to score a fight that way. What stood out for me in that video is when he talked about defence he talked about blocking punches and not slipping.....but maybe he just missed it.


----------



## doylexxx (Jun 9, 2012)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> You just said it wasn't subjective and then went on to make my counter argument for me.
> 
> Nobody would have argued if one of the judges had actually scored it 10-7. It would have been fair and the judges were free to do so at their discretion. But the knockdown didn't actually occur in that case, and so its a bad example.


It is totally subject but especially in the states there is some unwritten rules if you will like:

no even round cards

some wont go past 10-7 even if enough knockdowns due to making too much of a gap

and a few others


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)




----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2015)

thehook13 said:


>


So make up your own rules basically!


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

Rob said:


> So make up your own rules basically!


It seems vague but IMO he probably means not make it too complicated for yourself. A real judge has to look at all 4 criteria but to the layman, the harder cleaner damaging shots has much of the criteria covered. Basically use common sense and don't over complicate it.


----------



## Tom Mooney (Jul 6, 2015)

Practice Boxing workouts such as shadow boxing, speed bag boxing, diet, healthy food, running,food diet
SPEED BAG SWIVEL PROFESSIONAL


​


----------



## Tony Sheldon (Aug 3, 2015)

*Who is the current boxing heavyweight champion of the world?*

:bbb:bbb:bbb:bbb


----------



## Tony Sheldon (Aug 3, 2015)

In general, superior athletes possess average and above average l.Q.â€™s. For example, in a recent study of the intelligence levels of elite athletes in Europe, their average l.Q. was found to be 112 (S.D. 9.0). In similar studies conducted in America, the l.Q. of superior athletes ranged on average from 96 to 107.


----------



## Tony Sheldon (Aug 3, 2015)

HOW TO WRAP HANDS FOR A BOXING WORKOUT
All boxers on a compulsory note wrap their hands with *hand wraps*, in order to protect their fingers, wrists and knuckles. Hands are the first part of the body to encounter contact with the opponent and this means your hand muscles and wrists are put to work immediately. It is important that your fingers and knuckles are in good condition throughout the match.

know more at http://www.ambersport.co.uk/news/how-to-wrap-hands-for-a-boxing-workout/


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

Association of Ringside Physicians laceration guide


----------



## zoe (May 16, 2013)

Great thread. Scoring the fights myself has always been a passion of mine and some of the questions here I've wondered about, but never discussed.

I will also add that I'm involved in this site Eye On The Ring that is exclusively for fan cards. If you're following this thread, it might be of interest. If you keep a notebook of cards, it's a nice to have an online option.

The site is still mostly unknown. So we're looking for more fans to try it out and post about it on their blogs or Facebook.

http://www.eyeonthering.com/


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

zoe said:


> Great thread. Scoring the fights myself has always been a passion of mine and some of the questions here I've wondered about, but never discussed.
> 
> I will also add that I'm involved in this site Eye On The Ring that is exclusively for fan cards. If you're following this thread, it might be of interest. If you keep a notebook of cards, it's a nice to have an online option.
> 
> ...


Wow great post. I looked at that website and I'm kind of excited about it to be honest. I'll be spending some time there in the future.


----------



## zoe (May 16, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> Wow great post. I looked at that website and I'm kind of excited about it to be honest. I'll be spending some time there in the future.


Nice. The site really appeals to a lot of fans. Those who find it that is - we are still mostly unknown.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

HaroldLederman on a reddit AMA 10 monthes ago. Asked for tips on scoring a fight.

Well, you know, you go by the 4 criteria. Clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Now, the textbook answer is you score 25% each, but that's not the truth. The truth is clean punching is 99%, and the other three are if you can't make up your mind. At the end of the round, you say which guy hurt the other guy more than him and basically that's it. It's that simple, you try to determine who did more damage.

It's that simple really, they just complicate it with terms like effective aggression.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/4hvd8l


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

Same AMA. Lederman asked about the accuracy of punchstats.

Well, Bob Cannobio who invented punchstat, never claimed it was going to tell you who won the fight. It's just an interesting thing to have. As far as being accurate, these guys do it all the time, you've gotta hope they've developed a talent for counting. For example, Lampley always tells you if a fighter lands more than 50% of power punches he's going to win, and that's usually right.

It just adds a little to the broadcast. I would feel devastated if we had a fight without the punchstat guys. They do a wonderful job, they give us good numbers and I find it's an interesting part of the broadcast. It's not the same as the judges and doesn't tell you who won but it's interesting.


----------



## zoe (May 16, 2013)

thehook13 said:


> HaroldLederman on a reddit AMA 10 monthes ago. Asked for tips on scoring a fight.
> 
> Well, you know, you go by the 4 criteria. Clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Now, the textbook answer is you score 25% each, but that's not the truth. The truth is clean punching is 99%, and the other three are if you can't make up your mind. At the end of the round, you say which guy hurt the other guy more than him and basically that's it. It's that simple, you try to determine who did more damage.
> 
> ...


Effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense are _combined _1%? I say no. But I would say most judges, ringside and fans, do far outweigh clean punching over anything else, which does make sense. I just don't think less than a % for the other three is good judging.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

zoe said:


> Effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense are _combined _1%? I say no. But I would say most judges, ringside and fans, do far outweigh clean punching over anything else, which does make sense. I just don't think less than a % for the other three is good judging.


I think youre taking harold ledermans words a little too literal.


----------



## zoe (May 16, 2013)

thehook13 said:


> I think youre taking harold ledermans words a little too literal.


Probably.

Also I confess I didn't read the entire reddit thread, but I wonder if he might be making a generality about casual fans. I have found a few times watching a fight with a casual fan and they just count power shots... and that's it.


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

@Juiceboxbiotch How did you score round 5 of Joshua vs Wlad?


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

DrMo said:


> @Juiceboxbiotch How did you score round 5 of Joshua vs Wlad?


I didn't score the fight initially... but I took a look at round 5 real quick at your request. I would have scored it 10-8 for Joshua. Klitschko did have him hurt in the last minute of the round but it was short of the domination required to null the point deduction for the knockdown.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

Veteran referee telling you how it's done


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

thehook13 said:


> Veteran referee telling you how it's done


Class.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

thehook13 said:


> Veteran referee telling you how it's done


Nice.

I never even thought about this question before.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Harold Lederman often states that clean punching is given the highest precedence. There's a good video with him explaining it.
> 
> It IS simple. Who did the most damage in the round? Who landed the most effective punches? Volume shouldn't come into it unless the gap is so huge it's clear.


Except, that's not what the actual rules say.

Sadly, the rules are extremely murky in this area, and not quite the same for every organization. (Try ascertaining what specifically constitutes a foul. - And good luck to you! ) - Most, including the Unified rules, follow the original MDQ outline, but with their own small variations and additions.

It's obvious that the people in charge don't WANT the rules to be clear, as this lets them get away with robberies more easily.

Same as it ever was.


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

I've been thinking about big high profile fights, and ways the sport could give fans more confidence in decisions and the judges who render them. 

What if there were 9 judges in stead of 3?... with 4 judges at ringside (one on each side of the ring), and the other 3 judges watching on closed circuit television with no audio, no graphics, and no replays... just the raw broadcast with camera angle changes. 

I feel like if this, or something like it, were implemented.. it would prevent one terrible judge from mucking up the entire decision. It would also highlight the differences between sitting ringside and having access to the camera angles the viewers at home have, but without the commentary and crowd noise that contributes to bias. Don't you think the quality of decisions would go up, as well as confidence in the integrity of those decisions?


----------



## zoe (May 16, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> I've been thinking about big high profile fights, and ways the sport could give fans more confidence in decisions and the judges who render them.
> 
> What if there were 9 judges in stead of 3?... with 4 judges at ringside (one on each side of the ring), and the other 3 judges watching on closed circuit television with no audio, no graphics, and no replays... just the raw broadcast with camera angle changes.
> 
> I feel like if this, or something like it, were implemented.. it would prevent one terrible judge from mucking up the entire decision. It would also highlight the differences between sitting ringside and having access to the camera angles the viewers at home have, but without the commentary and crowd noise that contributes to bias. Don't you think the quality of decisions would go up, as well as confidence in the integrity of those decisions?


I feel like the biggest and best change would just be angle. If the 3 judges could get a better angle that change could make a huge difference. I don't think we need more judges.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

zoe said:


> I feel like the biggest and best change would just be angle. If the 3 judges could get a better angle that change could make a huge difference. I don't think we need more judges.


I think not letting Adelaide Byrd near a boxing ring would be a step forward/in the right direction.

I like boxing and dogs, Zoe. Wanna get together?


----------



## zoe (May 16, 2013)

Trail said:


> I think not letting Adelaide Byrd near a boxing ring would be a step forward/in the right direction.
> 
> I like boxing and dogs, Zoe. Wanna get together?


As long as we stay 6 feet apart.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

zoe said:


> As long as we stay 6 feet apart.


The government made that figure up, fuck 'em.

I'll give you first dibs on what first date fight we watch. No HW unless it's Mike though.


----------



## zoe (May 16, 2013)

Trail said:


> The government made that figure up, fuck 'em.
> 
> I'll give you first dibs on what first date fight we watch. No HW unless it's Mike though.


I'd sit down for some Tyson fights, anything to get through this lockdown. I'd want to watch his first 10 or so big fights, which is easy because they were all so short. Also I'm sure there's a Lennox Lewis fight you'd re-watch.

I can't believe I'm answering this. Things are bleak the world over I suppose.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

zoe said:


> I'd sit down for some Tyson fights, anything to get through this lockdown. I'd want to watch his first 10 or so big fights, which is easy because they were all so short. Also I'm sure there's a Lennox Lewis fight you'd re-watch.
> 
> I can't believe I'm answering this. Things are bleak the world over I suppose.


I have a Tyson career set, I was labelling it the other week. I watched Fight 1, Hector Mercedes through to Jim Douglas in a night, all 1 minute shoot out early doors. I'm not bothered for Lennox Lewis fights to be fair, I'd watch the Holy fight again for the controversy though. But it's your choice. You fetch yourself and the dog, I'll supply the fights, food and your ale.

I insist we watch at least one Jorge Paez fight, though.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Been busy as fuck today so only watched three fights...

The first three fights of their four were fucking belters - Izzy/Rafa.






Then this one...The sheer heartbreak. Gets me every time I watch it...






Last (until later tonight), a hero of mine overcomes massive cut...


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

Just started this. Never as good as their first fight, but, hey...few are...

Some excellent singing of the Mexican national anthem here.


----------



## Trail (May 24, 2013)

On now.

WARlando!!!!


----------

