Printable View
I'm not disputing the decision of the Ward/Kov whatsoever.
However, could argue that Ward won more rounds than Kovalev (7-5). Yet that same individual can argue that Kovalev's winning rounds were more dominant than Ward's winning rounds.
Should this be taken into consideration in scoring?
10-10 rounds. If you have to think about it, then your default score should be 10-10. There's no reason to artificially insert precision into something inherently imprecise. If a boxer wants to win a round, he has to do it clearly. This alone would probably solve the Ward/Kov problem.
I re scored it and had a 7 round swing
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...t-rescore.html
At this point, I think we might get better, more consistent decisions if we thumbtacked a picture of both guys to a wall and let a blindfolded man throw darts at them until he hit one. ;D
At the very least, it would cut down on suspected corruption!
Score the round as you see it the first time, do not bother re-scoring it again.
No. A big round still 10-9 should not Carey more weight than a tight 10-9 round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepwalker
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustNo. A big round still 10-9 should not Carey more weight than a tight 10-9 round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepwalker
That's the way it is now, of course. But we're looking for ways to improve scoring.
Say, for instance, that X fights Y and X dominates the first 6 rounds pounding Y from pillar to post, but no knockdowns. You know most of those will be scored 10-9. Then Y gets on his bicycle and begins purposely trying to eke out rounds, pitty-patting his way to close rounds that he wins. So in the end it's six 10-9 rounds each. Given human error, two of the three inept or corrupt judges could give one of X's rounds to Y. Voila....... you have a decision for Y.
1/2 point rounds? instead 10-9
Yeah. Maybe THAT'S our problem. Boxing oversimplifies everything so that a dominant round where the opponent does everything but knock the other guy down........... gets the same reward as a guy who barely ekes out a round. How antiquated and crappy is that?? Heaven knows judges don't need any help screwing up decisions. It's a daily occurrence in our sport. Why give them a system designed to help them f*ck up. Train judges better, then give them the latitude to score rounds 10-8 or 10-7 as they see fit. What do we have to lose? It can always be changed back if it doesn't work.
A bomber clubs his ballerina opponent 6 rounds and leads 60-54. Then the tide shifts and the ballerina/pansy skips and frolicks about for the next 6 rounds flicking a weak but scoring jab and AVOIDS ALL PUNCHES. I have no problem with the judges giving it to the ballerina.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustNo. A big round still 10-9 should not Carey more weight than a tight 10-9 round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepwalker
That's the way it is now, of course. But we're looking for ways to improve scoring.
Say, for instance, that X fights Y and X dominates the first 6 rounds pounding Y from pillar to post, but no knockdowns. You know most of those will be scored 10-9. Then Y gets on his bicycle and begins purposely trying to eke out rounds, pitty-patting his way to close rounds that he wins. So in the end it's six 10-9 rounds each. Given human error, two of the three inept or corrupt judges could give one of X's rounds to Y. Voila....... you have a decision for Y.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustA bomber clubs his ballerina opponent 6 rounds and leads 60-54. Then the tide shifts and the ballerina/pansy skips and frolicks about for the next 6 rounds flicking a weak but scoring jab and AVOIDS ALL PUNCHES. I have no problem with the judges giving it to the ballerina.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustNo. A big round still 10-9 should not Carey more weight than a tight 10-9 round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepwalker
That's the way it is now, of course. But we're looking for ways to improve scoring.
Say, for instance, that X fights Y and X dominates the first 6 rounds pounding Y from pillar to post, but no knockdowns. You know most of those will be scored 10-9. Then Y gets on his bicycle and begins purposely trying to eke out rounds, pitty-patting his way to close rounds that he wins. So in the end it's six 10-9 rounds each. Given human error, two of the three inept or corrupt judges could give one of X's rounds to Y. Voila....... you have a decision for Y.
"Skips and frolics" ;D
Let's then give the tiara to the ballerina, but the belts to the bomber.
OK I got a good idea. "entertainment value" should be added to the scorecards--- judges must add ONE POINT to the fighter who brought "more entertainment" to the crowd ...... It could Make or break a fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustA bomber clubs his ballerina opponent 6 rounds and leads 60-54. Then the tide shifts and the ballerina/pansy skips and frolicks about for the next 6 rounds flicking a weak but scoring jab and AVOIDS ALL PUNCHES. I have no problem with the judges giving it to the ballerina.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustNo. A big round still 10-9 should not Carey more weight than a tight 10-9 round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepwalker
That's the way it is now, of course. But we're looking for ways to improve scoring.
Say, for instance, that X fights Y and X dominates the first 6 rounds pounding Y from pillar to post, but no knockdowns. You know most of those will be scored 10-9. Then Y gets on his bicycle and begins purposely trying to eke out rounds, pitty-patting his way to close rounds that he wins. So in the end it's six 10-9 rounds each. Given human error, two of the three inept or corrupt judges could give one of X's rounds to Y. Voila....... you have a decision for Y.
"Skips and frolics" ;D
Let's then give the tiara to the ballerina, but the belts to the bomber.