The notion that every round, no matter how close, must have a winner is misguided. A lot of robberies and "robberies" often come down to who "won" these close rounds. Since these rounds are close there is always going to be a sharp difference of opinion. Close rounds that "have to" have a winner turns spectators into judges thus making the fights less fun. I should not have to recall every single action in a round to come up with a winner. If a winner is not obvious at the end of a round then there is no winner. Score the round 10-10. Full stop. No need to over analyze and replay the round in your head in order to pick a "winner." A winner should be obvious. I'm not saying you have to put a 10-8 beating on an opponent to win a round. But Fighter A outlanding Fighter B 25 to 24 should not make them a winner. You cant "win" by a hair or by an inch. You need to make them visibly stagger, back up, retreat, shell up, etc., to say nothing of knockdowns or takedowns. We cant stop close rounds but the commissions can stop the consequences of a close round. Liberal scoring of 10-10 is the way to go.