I'd probably think more about the TIME CUT:

That way you can show the round cards like a montage.

I believe it's actually good as is.

@Scott - That TIME CUT thing would 'read' better as THE DECISION in that one particular instance but I think that in your examples whenever there is an actual scene with dialogue from the characters the choice is TIME CUT. As opposed to a visual only (montage-like) composition in which case THE NTH ROUND was used. I believe it's for uniformity reasons - sort of keeping a nomenclature layout as far as the type of scene/visual the script dictates.

Almost like:

--Here's some boxing. OUR CHARACTER goes through the motions... (ACTION)

--There's some more boxing. Things get trickier for OUR CHARACTER... (ACTION)

AND -TIME CUT-
--Here is how OUR CHARACTER deals with it.

So while in this particular scene it is technically 'the decision' part of the fight, as it applies to the uniformity of the writing style it's saying - CHARACTER (RE)ACTION rather than simple ACTION.

So I don't think that the TIME CUT thing is used simlpy for editing reasons.

What bites at me is that although the "ANNOUNCER's VOICE gives a blow by blow description" of what is clearly written as ACTION, shouldn't it be written as DIALOGUE? What if it were written the other way around - as in writing the DIALOGUE and not the ACTION?

Like...
ANNOUNCER'S VOICE
A doest this. B reacts...

And in doing so we 'hear' the story as it's being told to us by the Announcer and obviously 'see' it as well.

I'm more concerned with that sort of thing, I mean at some point somebody's gotta write the dialogue for the actor - shouldn't it be in the script? Or is that a 'trick' to spread the text horizontally and keep the page count down??