Thread: Would an improved scoring system reduce "dodgy decisions"?

I believe that the problem has always been the the execution/interpretation of the system and how it is left to be massaged as opposed to the system it self.Their simply is no follow through and consequences handed down from state commissions and Promoters etc for clearly faulty results that are in error.......more often than not one gets the impression that the influence sways to a promotions 'house' fighter,almost an unspoken fact that has gone on for ages.They need to review these judges and should a card be handed in that is clearly off the mark from the majority...have them analyze the fight and break it down as to how that conclusion was arrived at.Review and cause and effect is key.Look for patterns.These are not just a open and close affair...these shite decisions effect a guys career and finances in each and every case.

Not sure about scoring a round in a lesser degree for being close or wide.They need to focus concern on just getting the round to the deserved fighter in the first place.Sort of expecting them to before they have learned to walk properly.They should also review the use of referees as judges on the same card.Sort of blurs the lines in a very short time frame.

[quote=Jimboogie;746788][quote=Bilbo;746446]

Originally Posted by CGM

As much as I agree with you within the context of scoring bouts, I have to point out that you are inadvertantly making a case for that of punchers being favoured in scoring, given the opinion that the main goal of a fight is to knock your opponent out.

Has Boxing not moved away from this notion?

Not at all, I actually think a new scoring method with judges able to award more points for dominating the round would favour punchers more as obviously light punching, elusive types like Calderon, Spinks, Malignaggi, Mayweather at the higher weights etc are less likely to have massively one sided rounds than huge punching or fast relentless tpye fighters like Pacquaio, Pavlik etc.

The current system is completely fine imo. If you outbox your opponent over the course of a round you will win the round 10-9. If you knock them down you will win the round 10-8 (which is fair as a knockdown is a tangible material gain).

But if you dominate a round, throwing and landing far more than your opponent but he doesn't go down or take a knee then you still only win the round 10-9. That's the way it should be, that's the strategy that fighters work to, sometimes taking a round off to catch their breath etc.

To use the Cotto Clottey fight again, when Cotto had Clottey on the ropes for an entire round he was totally dominating the round, but the correct score for the round is still only 10-9 Cotto because he didn't floor Clottey in that round. That's the way it should be.

Each round is a seperate mini event and the idea of being able to score more winning your rounds than you opponent does winning his (without kncokdowns and point deductions) would just make for frankly ridiculous scoring results.

You could easily imagine a fight like Marquez Pacquaio 2 being scored completely differently by each of the three judges under such rules, one giving Pacquaio double points for most of the rounds he won, Marquez only getting single points for his rounds or vice versa. A close fight could end up reading as a total domination and UD for one guy thanks to the new complications of the system.