Would an improved scoring system reduce "dodgy decisions"?

[CGM]

Make a vote and give your reasons if you want. I vote yes, because as it stands there is no room to differentiate between a fighter clearly winning a round and a fighter barely winning a round. Clearly winning a round should count for more than barely winning a round.

[TheDemolitionDan]

A scoring system like in the Olympics? No, RJJ was robbed in the Olympics....now THAT was a robbery.

[CGM]

A scoring system like in the Olympics? No, RJJ was robbed in the Olympics....now THAT was a robbery.

Point taken. No scoring system is going to overcome a dodgy judge. So we can't eliminate the possibility of dodgy judging altogether.

However, I still say that by allowing judges to differentiate between a clearly won round and a barely won round would eliminate a lot of situations where it looked like a fighter should have won, but ended up losing. So maybe the question could be, "would a changed scoring system reduce complaints about dodgy decisions?

[Youngblood]

I've always thought a better scoring system lays somewhere in the merging and tinkering of both AM computer scoring, and current professional scoring.

[Kev]

If we can't trust a judge to correctly score which fighter won a particular round then how are we supposed to believe they would be able to judge who won a round more dominantly than another fighter did their winning round?

I am completely opposed to any moves to complicate the scoring further.

At present judges can choose to award a round to either fighter, or score it even if they can't split. If they had to choose to award rounds extra points for a fighter being dominant then we would have far far more crazy scoring and far more complications.

It's clear to me that some judges could award a fight as a dominant round for one fighter and another could award it a dominant round for the other, the scoring system would be a bigger mess than ever.


In my opinion the current 10 points must system is fine. The only addition I would like is to allow the referee access to video footage between rounds to make judgements on close scores, i.e whether a knockdown, push or slip should be awarded, whether a fighter really committed an intentional foul etc.

Beyond that the scoring system is fine.

Imo its not the scoring system that is at fault, but rather some judges are either incompetent or else corrupt and favour the fighters whose promoters reward them with regular work, cozy hotels, nice little side benefits etc.


It also should be stressed above all else though that the number of genuine robberies is comparatively small.

What far more often occurs, (in the case of Toney Peter 1, Hopkins Calzaghe, Pacquaio Marquez 1&2, Cotto Clottey, Hopkins Taylor) is that the result is at odds with a particular posters opinion and so he cries robbery as if his own interperation is the correct and only way to view a fight.

None of the above for example were robberies irrespective of which way a poster here felt they went, they were just close fights and the winner depended on what type of boxing you like and what you tend to award points for.

[CGM]

So you see no value in differentiating between winning a round by a wide margin and winning it by a narrow margin?

[Bomp]

If we can't trust a judge to correctly score which fighter won a particular round then how are we supposed to believe they would be able to judge who won a round more dominantly than another fighter did their winning round?

I am completely opposed to any moves to complicate the scoring further.

At present judges can choose to award a round to either fighter, or score it even if they can't split. If they had to choose to award rounds extra points for a fighter being dominant then we would have far far more crazy scoring and far more complications.

It's clear to me that some judges could award a fight as a dominant round for one fighter and another could award it a dominant round for the other, the scoring system would be a bigger mess than ever.


In my opinion the current 10 points must system is fine. The only addition I would like is to allow the referee access to video footage between rounds to make judgements on close scores, i.e whether a knockdown, push or slip should be awarded, whether a fighter really committed an intentional foul etc.

Beyond that the scoring system is fine.

Imo its not the scoring system that is at fault, but rather some judges are either incompetent or else corrupt and favour the fighters whose promoters reward them with regular work, cozy hotels, nice little side benefits etc.


It also should be stressed above all else though that the number of genuine robberies is comparatively small.

What far more often occurs, (in the case of Toney Peter 1, Hopkins Calzaghe, Pacquaio Marquez 1&2, Cotto Clottey, Hopkins Taylor) is that the result is at odds with a particular posters opinion and so he cries robbery as if his own interperation is the correct and only way to view a fight.

None of the above for example were robberies irrespective of which way a poster here felt they went, they were just close fights and the winner depended on what type of boxing you like and what you tend to award points for.

Agree totally.

I see CGM's point though, and if judges were more prepared to score close rounds even then the massive swings in scoring would be avoided.

[Quinito]

I'm undecided. Pardon me for getting off the topic here little bit. But did anyone scored a 10-9 for Cotto in round 1 eventhough there was a knockdown?