In professional boxing scoring a knockdown (usually) gets you an extra point and renders a 10-8 score for the round. That changes (usually) if both fighters score knockdowns. It can also change if a point is deducted by the referee for a foul.

That isn’t the hard part to understand.

The hard part to understand is: One, when can a single knockdown NOT result in an extra point, and two, when can an extra point be given when there is no knockdown?

Unfortunately, for those who like objective, solid, unvarying rules and guidelines, you’re out of luck. There will be no shortage of explanations but very little to hang your hat on, point to and be 100 per cent certain of in this facet of judging.

Let’s break it down.

The “Flash” Knockdown

Some TV commentators reference the “Flash” knockdown like it is a rulebook classification, a type or a category of the knockdown.

It isn’t.

At least not when it comes to the scoring criteria.

If any part of a boxer’s body touches the canvas other than the soles of their feet it is considered a knockdown. Judges are supposed to award an extra point for a knockdown, though, officially, they aren’t required to.

A knockdown should result in an extra point. Judges are trained to go with what the referee rules.

Much like Joe Friday on Dragnet (I realizing I’m skewing a tad old here) judges are supposed to work on the facts. The question is—did the referee rule it a knockdown? If he or she did, it is a knockdown. Usually, that means an extra point.

It is generally considered that judges are not to overrule the referee.

“The Pillar to Post” Domination Round

Judges are trained to award an extra point in a non-knockdown round when one fighter totally dominates the other.

There’s a problem with the semantics of this statement.

Define “dominate.”

While you’re at it, define “totally.”

This is where the subjectivity of boxing gets in the way of the precision of scoring. Some of my colleagues will argue that they know it when they see it. They’ll say its when one boxer dominates the other “From Pillar to Post.”

Despite the catchiness of the “Pillar to post” alliteration and the “Knowing It When You See It” maxim, it doesn’t exactly bring to boxing the same thing as those computerized strike zones bring to baseball.

It still is subjective.

Consider:

Is it total domination if the fighter getting dominated lands a single jab?

Two jabs?

Three jabs?

What if the fighter getting beaten shows good defense and gets out of the way some of the time?

What if the fighter does that annoying smile thing and sticks out their tongue to show that they aren’t hurt or…dominated? (um, I’m trying to be funny here.)

It means it is subjective.

It means it is a matter of judgement.

This is where judging gets hard. Evaluating domination or what the ABC refers to as “Excessive Decisiveness” is in the eyes, brain and interpretation of the judge.

Domination or “Excessive Decisivenesss” should mean things like:

Did the ropes keep the opponent from hitting the canvas?

Were the punches damaging, causing staggering?

Was the fighter unable to mount any reasonable offense?

Did the losing boxer look like they were about to go down any second?

Once again…all of these have a great deal of subjectivity to them.

There is one thing that I am confident of: The use of the 10-8 non-knockdown rule should be used sparingly, carefully and when it is totally warranted. It shouldn’t be used in rounds that are just being won by one boxer.

Now, could there be other ways of scoring to fix this?

Probably.

We could use all of the numbers from one to 10. We could use half points. You could do aggregate scoring.

The possibilities are almost endless.

However, and this is important, currently we don’t use any other system other than the 10-point must system. That’s what we got and to go rogue and try your own interpretation on your own goes against the rules of the sport  and will screw everything up.

Maybe changes could and even should be made but until they are, judges need to follow the existing criteria.