Thread: Judges scoring

Does anyone think there would be any place for a half point scoring system?? Say if a round was really tight, but one fighter just nicked it, you could score it 10-9.5? Or if a fighter totally dominates a round but doesn't score a knockdown you could score 10-8.5? Or would this simply over complicate an already really difficult job?? Or has it been tried in the past and simply doesn't work??

I think it's more when I'm watching a fight and a fighter totally dominates a round, it's 10-9, then the next is maybe just slightly outworked loses 9-10 I think half points may be handy?? Would be interesting to hear people's views anyway!

What would have the effect is teaching/informing the judges that there's nothing in the rules that ties scores to knockdowns. If you win a big round and don't knock your opponent down, it *should* be a 10-8 round. But judges just subtract 1 for every knockdown. It's a thoughtless oversimplification that isn't mandated or even suggested by current regulations.

if it ain't broke why fix it? haha...

it would be alot harder to fix fights if the scoring system were more logical and fair.

lets face it boxing is rotten to the core. the only people who would benefit from a less corrupt system would be the boxers and the fans...and who really cares about them!

Actually, I thing (counterintuitively) that in a more fair system, it would be easier to fix fights. The way things are now, a judge would really stand out like a sore thumb giving a 10-8 round to someone who doesn't score a knockdown. A judge SHOULD have (and use) the discretion to award a 10-8 round with no knockdowns, but then it would be easier to arrange for a particular boxer to win.

What annoys me is that when a fighter scores a knockdown that almost always automatically wins them the round (generally making it a 10-8 round). Sure a knockdown is worth a point but if one fighter is outboxed for 2.5 minutes and then scores a flash knockdown they generally seem to win the round 10-8 rather than the round being scored level as I see it should be. Reason being that in being outboxed for almost the entire round they should be a point down and by scorinng the flash knockdown they pull that point back. As it stands judges are free to score the round in this way but seldom do so.

Back to the original question of half points I believe they were once used in scoring fights but im not sure exactly when, I'll try to find out.

Originally Posted by beerjelly

What annoys me is that when a fighter scores a knockdown that almost always automatically wins them the round (generally making it a 10-8 round). Sure a knockdown is worth a point but if one fighter is outboxed for 2.5 minutes and then scores a flash knockdown they generally seem to win the round 10-8 rather than the round being scored level as I see it should be. Reason being that in being outboxed for almost the entire round they should be a point down and by scorinng the flash knockdown they pull that point back. As it stands judges are free to score the round in this way but seldom do so.

Back to the original question of half points I believe they were once used in scoring fights but im not sure exactly when, I'll try to find out.

Totally agree, it's always as though soon as a knockdown is scored the rest of the round is forgotten and automatically scored 10-8 regardless of the rest of the round!!

Fights in the UK were scored using half points until fairly recently. Maybe the 1980s?

It is confusing. One guy wins 6 rounds pretty clearly and the other guy wins 6 pretty darn close rounds. Yet, the fight is even and everyone watching would say that one guy won the fight if judged in the totality.

But we score the fight round by round and winning a round by a hair is the same as winning it rather clearly.