Comments Thread For: Roach Upset: Ruslan Should've Had Three 10-8 Rounds

[-PBP-]

For the first time I agree with Roach. People are going to say that it's rare to see a 10-8 round without a knockdown and I agree, but I think it shouldn't bee like that.
For me a boxer should be rewarded if he completely beats his opponent instead of just jabbing him for one whole round. It's not the same to hurt your opponent and give him a bad beating for over a minute, than just winning the round by a small margin.

For me round 1 was a 10-9 round, but I gave Ruslan the second round by 10-8 because Bradley received a bad beating, he was out on his feet for almost half of the round and was lucky to survive. That's more than enough to get him a 10-8 round.

Oh and I think it was in round 6 when Bradley was almost down but helped himself to stay up by using the ropes, that should've been a knockdown.

See this is where my issue comes in.

The guy that shows guts and stays on his feet shouldn't be treated the same as a guy that takes a knee to clear his head and run the clock down. Scoring 10-8 rounds for "hurting" or "wobbling" opponent gives you no incentive to fight back and stand on your feet.

A 10-8 round should only be awarded in cases where a fighter dominates the entire 3 minutes of the round and the opponent does no effective work in return. That wasn't the case in rounds 1 and 2 of this fight.

[vacon04]

See this is where my issue comes in.

The guy that shows guts and stays on his feet shouldn't be treated the same as a guy that takes a knee to clear his head and run the clock down. Scoring 10-8 rounds for "hurting" or "wobbling" opponent gives you no incentive to fight back and stand on your feet.

A 10-8 round should only be awarded in cases where a fighter dominates the entire 3 minutes of the round and the opponent does no effective work in return. That wasn't the case in rounds 1 and 2 of this fight.

For me the difference is not that he hurt or wobbled Bradley, but that he hurt and wobbled Bradley for half of the round and gave him a bad beating.

I don't score 10-8 rounds when a fighter is hurt and stays on his feet when he's not taking a bad beating. Anyone could be hurt and survive to maintain a 10-9 round, some of them even fight back to win the round, but specifically for this case for example I think it was a 10-8 round because he was all over the place, just hanging on for his life.

So there's actually incentive. If a fighter takes a knee then most likely he already lost the round, and by a 10-8 score, but if he stays on his feet then he still has the chance of losing by 10-9 or even winning the round by fighting back.

[vacon04]

See this is where my issue comes in.

The guy that shows guts and stays on his feet shouldn't be treated the same as a guy that takes a knee to clear his head and run the clock down. Scoring 10-8 rounds for "hurting" or "wobbling" opponent gives you no incentive to fight back and stand on your feet.

A 10-8 round should only be awarded in cases where a fighter dominates the entire 3 minutes of the round and the opponent does no effective work in return. That wasn't the case in rounds 1 and 2 of this fight.

For me the difference is not that he hurt or wobbled Bradley, but that he hurt and wobbled Bradley for half of the round and gave him a bad beating.

I don't score 10-8 rounds when a fighter is hurt and stays on his feet when he's not taking a bad beating. Anyone could be hurt and survive to maintain a 10-9 round, some of them even fight back to win the round, but specifically for this case for example I think it was a 10-8 round because he was all over the place, just hanging on for his life.

So there's actually incentive. If a fighter takes a knee then most likely he already lost the round, and by a 10-8 score, but if he stays on his feet then he still has the chance of losing by 10-9 or even winning the round by fighting back.

[Dr Rumack]

There's a reasonable argument either way, but saying they should have been 10-8 rounds is overstating the case. Could have been 10-8, not should have been.

All this talk really does is distract people from the fact that Provodnikov had Bradley almost gone on a number of different occasions, and wasn't able to finish him off.

Roach's fighter could have taken it out of the judges hands, but he couldn't get the job done. Tim Bradley could have been knocked out, but he survived and found a way to win. Again.

[ThatDude44]

Roach seems to be on a huge win streak, lol.

[Fighting_Pride]

the judges in the us are incompetent, they somehow side with more main stream names. bradley was just moving a lot but provodnikov clearly gave out more punishment. another gift decision

[thatdudespits]

And that is why European fighters should not fight in USA. Simple as that.

european?


Posted from krikya360.com App for Android

[HeroBando]

There's a reasonable argument either way, but saying they should have been 10-8 rounds is overstating the case. Could have been 10-8, not should have been.

All this talk really does is distract people from the fact that Provodnikov had Bradley almost gone on a number of different occasions, and wasn't able to finish him off.

Roach's fighter could have taken it out of the judges hands, but he couldn't get the job done. Tim Bradley could have been knocked out, but he survived and found a way to win. Again.

That's true for round 2. Round 1 is clear cut, contingent on the KD call

[HeroBando]

See this is where my issue comes in.

The guy that shows guts and stays on his feet shouldn't be treated the same as a guy that takes a knee to clear his head and run the clock down. Scoring 10-8 rounds for "hurting" or "wobbling" opponent gives you no incentive to fight back and stand on your feet.

A 10-8 round should only be awarded in cases where a fighter dominates the entire 3 minutes of the round and the opponent does no effective work in return. That wasn't the case in rounds 1 and 2 of this fight.

I agree that when a guy is throwing back like Tim in rd 2 it's hardly ever 10-8. But like vacon said, he was staggered repeatedly and out on his feel for much of the round. It was a miracle he made it out, right? Plus he was held up by the ropes when that left hook sent him flying back. That rarely gets called, though it's technically a KD.

[mathed]

For me the difference is not that he hurt or wobbled Bradley, but that he hurt and wobbled Bradley for half of the round and gave him a bad beating.

I don't score 10-8 rounds when a fighter is hurt and stays on his feet when he's not taking a bad beating. Anyone could be hurt and survive to maintain a 10-9 round, some of them even fight back to win the round, but specifically for this case for example I think it was a 10-8 round because he was all over the place, just hanging on for his life.

So there's actually incentive. If a fighter takes a knee then most likely he already lost the round, and by a 10-8 score, but if he stays on his feet then he still has the chance of losing by 10-9 or even winning the round by fighting back.

Well, to be fair, you might as well score round 3 a 10-8 for Bradley as Ruslan threw like 7 punches and got dominated for the entire 3 minutes. Would that be fair as well?