Do 10-8 rounds have an objective frame of reference?

[countswagula]

I get this a lot when arguing whether a certain round in a fight was a 10-8 or not. People usually say "But he didn't do enough damage/dominate enough for it to really be considered a 10-8". Personally, I think that point of view defeats the whole purpose of having 10-8 rounds, which is to distinguish the levels of dominance with which a fight was won. If a fighter won a round in more dominant fashion than he lost others, shouldn't that be reflected on the overall judging of the fight? Isn't that the whole point?

 

[rudyray]

That's the problem. No one can say for certain what constitutes a 10-8. That's why they are rare. How domanant does a fighter have to be? What if a submission is locked in right before the bell? Should that be 10-8? Most judges will stay away from a 10-8 unless its so lop sided that they are almost forced to score it that way

 

[rudyray]

It sucks because fighter A can dominate round 1, but barely lose a even round 2, and be dead even on the score cards . But that's prize fighting untill someone comes up with a better way

 

[countswagula]

It sucks because fighter A can dominate round 1, but barely lose a even round 2, and be dead even on the score cards . But that's prize fighting untill someone comes up with a better way

Yeah that's what I'm getting at. 10-8s should be used to acknowledge a round was dominant in relation to other rounds in that same fight, not in relation to some borderline fictional idea of dominantion.