Some key historical bouts:
Leonard vs Hearns - Leonard was behind on all three judges scorecards (Lou Tabat 122-125 | Chuck Minker 121-125 | Duane Ford 122-124). Leonard scored an impressive 14th round TKO.
Joe Louis vs Billy Conn - Leading on all three scorecards, Conn was KOd in the 13th round.
Some recent 12 round fights may have been different:
Bernard Hopkins vs Jermain Taylor I (& II) - In the first fight it was clear Taylor exerted most of his energy and it took everything for him to finish up strong. Also, Hopkins is clearly known for his late starts in bouts.
Pacqiuao vs Marquez II (& I) - The 2nd fight Manny was exhausted and made the statement he's not fighting Marquez again. The 1st bout was declared a draw. Manny had a huge lead and Marquez closed the distance winning most the later rounds. In the 1st round Manny knocked Marquez down 3 times causing two judges scoring it 10-6 with one judge scoring it 10-7. The judge scoring it 10-7 stated he made a mistake.
- Hypothetically if a fighter gets knockdown 4 times in a round but appears able to continue, should the score automatically be 10-5? Now the fighter needs to win five 10-9 rounds to equal one bad round. This seems more amateur style then what they claim professional scoring is based on round dominance. What if the fighter who lost the first round started dominating each round with the appearance he will stop his hurt and fatigued opponent within a few more rounds. Before the end of the 5th round you have an accidental headbutt and the ringside doctor stops the bout before the 6th round. Going to the scorecards the dominant fighter throughout 80% of the fight can't win. Did a few flash knockdowns and maybe a few legit worth a fighter winning in that scenario? Isn't that why we have KOs (TKOs). If a fighter can win a decision mostly based on one great round, he should at least dominate other rounds or show a decisive win by KO (TKO).