Re: Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.
I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.
To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?
Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".
And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.
Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.
Re: Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds
i proposed half points. "0.5" ... why does everything have to be a point? if a fighter goes down..it's one point, if he goes down again in the same round..it's half point.
if a fighter is hurt and doesn't go down.. like in the Bradley fight round 1... judge has the right to give a half point deductions...cuz Ruslav won the round and hurt him..it should mean more than just a regular round... also, the second round... Bradely was on queer street the whole time and never went down..how is that a 10-9 round...? just a thought.
Re: Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.
I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.
To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?
Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".
And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.
Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.
Someone has never scored a round wrong before
Re: Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds
i dont agree
there has to be more hard fast rules about how to score a round rather than leaving more to interpretation
:)
Re: Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.
I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.
To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?
Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".
And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.
Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.
Cant agree. There have been and will continue to be tons of even rounds. I think its wrong to award a round to someone when there was not a clear winner. Many, many first rounds especially over history have been even rounds. Many today can be called such. A "feel out round". Nothing in the ten point must system says you have to find a winner in a given round when there was not one. Even rounds exist in the scoring system because even rounds exist. I've called even rounds plenty of times over the course of my life and it had nothing to do with being lazy.
Re: Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds
*I risk getting run out of here with my crazy ideas... BUT what u guys r talking about is in relation to my partial point system... why does it have to be a whole point? why does a guy HAVE to win 10-9... if rounds r so close, why not have a 10- 9.5 round?
Re: Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigstinkybug
*I risk getting run out of here with my crazy ideas... BUT what u guys r talking about is in relation to my partial point system... why does it have to be a whole point? why does a guy HAVE to win 10-9... if rounds r so close, why not have a 10- 9.5 round?
just as daft an idea
noone would have the slightest idea whats going on
or are you taking the piss?
Re: Refs need to start exercising their right to hand out 10-8 rounds
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Completely agree with this. Could get far too controversial. I have a few that not nearly enough rounds are scored even in boxing. There should be a lot more 10-10 rounds then there are and I believe this would make scorecards a lot fairer. Again I haven't see the recent Bradley fight yet but lookin at Marquez v PAC, I think I had 3 or 4 tied rounds which the judges gave to PAC (the rounds I give tied almost always go to the hometown or popular fighter) which if actually scored as ties would have given Marquez the W.
I disagree 100% with the even round thing and I always have.
To score a round even is just lazy judging and it irks me whenever I see it on the cards. There are so many nuances and subtleties in boxing that no round is ever completely even. Ring generalship, clean/effective punching, effective aggressiveness... when are all of these things ever completely even in a round?
Scoring a round even, to me, shows a lack of knowledge about the sweet science. No one who gets paid to judge a fight should ever say "arghh its too hard to call, I'll score it even".
And I don't understand how this rule would lead to MORE corruption. Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, guys have been getting fucked on the cards for over a century with the current system anyway. If a judge is payed off, he's going to score it the way he was paid to score it anyway. We've seen guys win 10-12 rounds CLEARLY and lose decisions. These people have no shame and 10-8 rounds aren't going to make a difference.
Basically what you're saying is you don't like it because it leaves too much up to interpretation... well, we're talking about guys who make their living off of interpreting boxing! They should be able to tell to what degree a guy wins a round, and if they can't then they have no business judging.
Cant agree. There have been and will continue to be tons of even rounds. I think its wrong to award a round to someone when there was not a clear winner. Many, many first rounds especially over history have been even rounds. Many today can be called such. A "feel out round". Nothing in the ten point must system says you have to find a winner in a given round when there was not one. Even rounds exist in the scoring system because even rounds exist. I've called even rounds plenty of times over the course of my life and it had nothing to do with being lazy.
But do u agree not enough rounds are scored even. I find rounds that I have scored even judges have given to the home town guy, poss because he is suaded by cheers from the crowd.
I'm not suing every close round should be scored even but a round where u can make a good case for both fighters winning should be scored even
Yes I do agree and everything else you mentioned here. They are not counted nearly enough and whether you can make a case for either or neither that's an even round.
