Nevada changes rules

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...ory?id=2517522

Biggest ones to note
135 and up will be wearing 10 ounce gloves.
stricter rules on weight lose for a fight, and more watching the fighters do it in a healthier manner, and harsher punishment on people not able to make weight.

:coolclick: Thanks for the info, i read the article and it sounds like the changes are all good. I've wondered before why they don't allow sports drinks between rounds like they do in tennis, boxing is the perfect sport for it. I don't think anyone likes to drink much between rounds but a little gulp can't hurt. I hope they put a good scheme in place where the fighters are monitored in training and if they are in awful shape then they won't get to fight or get paid.

I think sports drinks make perfect sense... more sponsors... I think they should get more endorsements from companies like adidas, nike, etc. if they use their products more. And the change in glove weight over 135 is pretty drastic.

Very good changes !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...ory?id=2517522

Biggest ones to note
135 and up will be wearing 10 ounce gloves.
stricter rules on weight lose for a fight, and more watching the fighters do it in a healthier manner, and harsher punishment on people not able to make weight.

---

COOL CLICK thats interesting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...ory?id=2517522

Biggest ones to note
135 and up will be wearing 10 ounce gloves.
stricter rules on weight lose for a fight, and more watching the fighters do it in a healthier manner, and harsher punishment on people not able to make weight.

---

:brushteeth:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBESTP4P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...ory?id=2517522

Biggest ones to note
135 and up will be wearing 10 ounce gloves.
stricter rules on weight lose for a fight, and more watching the fighters do it in a healthier manner, and harsher punishment on people not able to make weight.

---

COOL CLICK thats interesting!

---

cc back

i'm just thinking out loud here but in the judges' scoring i think it would be good to add a .5 option to the scores. it would still be a 10 point must system and a very close round can be scored 10-9.5. a kd would still be an automatic 10-8 round, 2 kds still a 10-7 and so on and so forth but adding the 1/2 point option to define the scoring in every round would imo give more flexibility and refinement to the system. what do you think?

Hard to say.. I've always thought maybe an adjustment to encourage them to score more rounds even would be a help... Judges generally do a good job, but we've seen clearly so many times they they have an equal ability to f'k it up, and as it stands the way they score is pretty simple.. So I kind of thing making it any more complicated even in the slightest is just going to make it harder on judges scoring accurately, but maybe the opposite..



On a side note, it spins me out when i'm reading a thread getting into it and then suddenly I see someone giving someone else a CC... I'm like WTF, either they are trying to be nostalgic, or it's an old old thread... either way it messes with my brain every time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KKisser

i'm just thinking out loud here but in the judges' scoring i think it would be good to add a .5 option to the scores. it would still be a 10 point must system and a very close round can be scored 10-9.5. a kd would still be an automatic 10-8 round, 2 kds still a 10-7 and so on and so forth but adding the 1/2 point option to define the scoring in every round would imo give more flexibility and refinement to the system. what do you think?

---

I understand your logic, but I think it would add a layer of complexity that's not necessary. There should however be a way to prove that judges understand the criteria on which they are judging. I also think that you should not be allowed to give 10-10 rounds, you are there to judge, make a decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KKisser

i'm just thinking out loud here but in the judges' scoring i think it would be good to add a .5 option to the scores. it would still be a 10 point must system and a very close round can be scored 10-9.5. a kd would still be an automatic 10-8 round, 2 kds still a 10-7 and so on and so forth but adding the 1/2 point option to define the scoring in every round would imo give more flexibility and refinement to the system. what do you think?

---

I like your ideas here. I too would like to see changes that would recognize the difference between a fighter barely winning a round and a fighter clearly winning a round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KKisser

i'm just thinking out loud here but in the judges' scoring i think it would be good to add a .5 option to the scores. it would still be a 10 point must system and a very close round can be scored 10-9.5. a kd would still be an automatic 10-8 round, 2 kds still a 10-7 and so on and so forth but adding the 1/2 point option to define the scoring in every round would imo give more flexibility and refinement to the system. what do you think?

---

I understand your logic, but I think it would add a layer of complexity that's not necessary. There should however be a way to prove that judges understand the criteria on which they are judging. I also think that you should not be allowed to give 10-10 rounds, you are there to judge, make a decision.

---

i agree w/ KS.. if a boxer knew that they only lost the round 10-9.5 , they may not give that extra bit of effort knowing that they're only half a point behind, as opposed to a full point.. The scoring is fine the way it is i think.. that's why there are three judges, so that you can hopefully get a majority decision of who won the round/fight.. If there was only one judge, then maybe fractions of points could prove necessary, but i don't see the need right now..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

I understand your logic, but I think it would add a layer of complexity that's not necessary. There should however be a way to prove that judges understand the criteria on which they are judging. I also think that you should not be allowed to give 10-10 rounds, you are there to judge, make a decision.

---

it's really not that complex. it's just a half point that would separate a close round especially where a 10-10 round is not allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dizaster

Hard to say.. I've always thought maybe an adjustment to encourage them to score more rounds even would be a help... Judges generally do a good job, but we've seen clearly so many times they they have an equal ability to f'k it up, and as it stands the way they score is pretty simple.. So I kind of thing making it any more complicated even in the slightest is just going to make it harder on judges scoring accurately, but maybe the opposite..


On a side note, it spins me out when i'm reading a thread getting into it and then suddenly I see someone giving someone else a CC... I'm like WTF, either they are trying to be nostalgic, or it's an old old thread... either way it messes with my brain every time

---

bad judging will always be a problem and they'll screw it up whatever the system of scoring is. the thing is if you have good judges and you have a better system of scoring a fight, it would only augers well for the sport.

and yup, i still have my boy bestp4p up there to give you a clue that this thread has been dug up from the grave. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGM

I like your ideas here. I too would like to see changes that would recognize the difference between a fighter barely winning a round and a fighter clearly winning a round.

---

thanks. i really think the organizations should do something about the system and the quality of judges as well, as there have been several fights ending in dubious and outrageous decisions which just messes up the sport.

Why piss around with half points? You've got 10 points to work with, why not use a few of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KKisser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

I understand your logic, but I think it would add a layer of complexity that's not necessary. There should however be a way to prove that judges understand the criteria on which they are judging. I also think that you should not be allowed to give 10-10 rounds, you are there to judge, make a decision.

---

it's really not that complex. it's just a half point that would separate a close round especially where a 10-10 round is not allowed.

---

What's the gain here though? How would a 10-9.5 round be better than a 10-9 round? I think things should be much more simple and binary you won the round or you didn't.