Printable View
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.
A scoring system like in the Olympics? No, RJJ was robbed in the Olympics....now THAT was a robbery.
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?
Point taken. No scoring system is going to overcome a dodgy judge. So we can't eliminate the possibility of dodgy judging altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by "The L.A. Earthquake"
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?
I've always thought a better scoring system lays somewhere in the merging and tinkering of both AM computer scoring, and current professional scoring.
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.
So you see no value in differentiating between winning a round by a wide margin and winning it by a narrow margin?
my main problem with that would be dealing with the guys who know how to nick a round by looking busy in the last 30, people like SRL were experts at catching the judges eye late in the round so a final flurry could get you say a 10 -7 rounds just coz you avaided any hits early and then got busy late.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
Maybe look at the amount of judges, you can't always see every punch dependant on where you are placed.
Possibly having the ref score too although he should be looking out to do his main job, British title fights used to be judged by the ref.
Also liked the idea on being able to view video footage between rounds to clarify something, but again you are reliant on whoever is in charge of the replays.Not to say anyone in the television company is crooked but it would raise concerns if something were 'missed":rolleyes:
I dunno, it just sounds to me like you are saying judges are incapable of judging what's really going on, and if that's the case, and I don't think it is, but if it is the case, then i can't really disagree with you, I can only say that no scoring system will overcome incompetent judging.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiebhoymy main problem with that would be dealing with the guys who know how to nick a round by looking busy in the last 30, people like SRL were experts at catching the judges eye late in the round so a final flurry could get you say a 10 -7 rounds just coz you avaided any hits early and then got busy late.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
Maybe look at the amount of judges, you can't always see every punch dependant on where you are placed.
Possibly having the ref score too although he should be looking out to do his main job, British title fights used to be judged by the ref.
Also liked the idea on being able to view video footage between rounds to clarify something, but again you are reliant on whoever is in charge of the replays.Not to say anyone in the television company is crooked but it would raise concerns if something were 'missed":rolleyes:
Myself, I'd like to think that a judge can tell the difference between a fighter clearly winning a round, and a fighter just nicking around. :-\
No I see very little wrong with the current scoring system. Improved judges would reduce a dodgy decisions.
I seriously believe that half of us on here are better judges of fights than the actual judges themselves. Maybe judges should have to wear noise cancelling headphones so that they are not swayed by the crowd etc :D
I always score fights better when I mute the sound ;)
how about 5 judges and then get rid of two of the most off scores.
like
j1 10-9 boxer a
j2 10-4 boxer a
j3 10-6 boxer a
j4 10-8 boxer b
j5 10-9 boxer b
j2 and j3 are obviously watching a different fight while the others viewed it the same.
boxer b wins!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
thats why i never watch a pac fight on local tv. pinoy commentators are clearly for pac. like a simple jab from pac and the commentators will be like oh what a straight left it rocked pacs opponent bad. blehhh
Agree totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
I don't dislike the idea of scoring for a close round but to my opinion, the problem doesn't lay there especially, some changes that should be make include:
1) You should never have more than one judge from the same nationality as any of the boxers (except if both of the same nationality)
2) There should be an official camera system between rounds or something like that to clarify officially if there is a fall, a foul or something so those playing too dirty couldn't get away with it.
3) The referee in charge should have an evaluation after each fight and if he screws up things more than X in a specific laps of time, he should be out for a period of time. Of course, there would be a criteria grid for it and by screwing things up, I do not mean on a close call but something major.
4) THere should be ultimately a way to overturn a decision if it is wayyy too shabby (example Lucas-Beyer in Germany, fight I did assist); Once again, it shouldn't apply to close call but for matches where the alphabetic order apologises and order a rematch because the decision didn't make sense.
No system is perfect, and I think the current system works fine.
When there is a bad decision, it's almost always because of bad judging, not a bad system.
I voted for reforms in the scoring, but after reading Bilbo's post, i completely changed my mind.
What we need is State governed Officials.
fair enough. I worded the original question wrong anyway. Dodgy kinda means "suspect", or "bad", which is not what I really intended.
I still say that dominating a round should be worth more than edging out or "knicking a round", and a lot of the dissatisfaction about decisions stems from the fact that there is no distinction between the two.
But hey, if people think that a distinction should not be made between a dominating round and a "knicked round", or that boxing people are incapable of telling the difference anyway, well there's not much I can say about that.
I don't think a distinction should be made. A fight is divided into rounds and the boxer who wins the most rounds wins the fight, unless knockdowns and point deductions come into effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
To use an extreme example n tennis you could win a match 7-5, 0-6, 7-5, 0-6, 7-5 and win even though you have won far less actual games than your opponent and yet nobody would want to change that system.
If fighters could be awarded a greater or lesser number of points for the rounds they win it would pave the way to all kinds of bizarre and terrible scoring.
I can't argue against your first two paragraphs, cause it's just an opinion, as is mine, except that you might well ask why do they score it 10-8 for every flash knockdown. But paragraph three implies there is no reasonable way to differentiate between a dominant round and an "edged" round, or that judges, and that includes you and me, are inherently incapable of dealing with the situation, which I don't accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI don't think a distinction should be made. A fight is divided into rounds and the boxer who wins the most rounds wins the fight, unless knockdowns and point deductions come into effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
To use an extreme example n tennis you could win a match 7-5, 0-6, 7-5, 0-6, 7-5 and win even though you have won far less actual games than your opponent and yet nobody would want to change that system.
If fighters could be awarded a greater or lesser number of points for the rounds they win it would pave the way to all kinds of bizarre and terrible scoring.
Yes but the current system doesn't necessitate that we differentiate between a big round and a close round, other than knockdowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMI can't argue against your first two paragraphs, cause it's just an opinion, as is mine, except that you might well ask why do they score it 10-8 for every flash knockdown. But paragraph three implies there is no reasonable way to differentiate between a dominant round and an "edged" round, or that judges, and that includes you and me, are inherently incapable of dealing with the situation, which I don't accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboI don't think a distinction should be made. A fight is divided into rounds and the boxer who wins the most rounds wins the fight, unless knockdowns and point deductions come into effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
To use an extreme example n tennis you could win a match 7-5, 0-6, 7-5, 0-6, 7-5 and win even though you have won far less actual games than your opponent and yet nobody would want to change that system.
If fighters could be awarded a greater or lesser number of points for the rounds they win it would pave the way to all kinds of bizarre and terrible scoring.
Actually even that isn't totally true. In exceptional cases 10-8 rounds are awarded at the judges discretion when a fighter gets totally dominated but doesn't hit the canvas, doesn't happen often, except on Teddy Atlas' cards but the provision is there.
Ultimately each championship fight has 12 rounds and the goal of the fighter (KO's notwithstanding) is to win more of those rounds than his opponent.
If judges can disagree with which fighter won a round (and they always do) then they will disagree whether a round was dominant or not thus the disparity in scoredcards would be even greater and the potential for dodgy decisions would likely be doubled.
Plus what if you're a boxer type with a non punch? Wouldn't this system discriminate against the likes of Calderon, Spinks, Mayweather etc, classy boxers who like to outwork and outbox their opponent over the course of many rounds could have their accumalated advantages wiped out because of a big punch landing by their more powerful opponent.
An example I can think of would be the first Calderon Cazares fight, a masterful performance from Calderon imo where he clearly outpointed his much bigger rival. However Cazares had a couple of big rounds, he was the puncher after all and maybe he would have got double points for those efforts which imo would be unfair.
Also if you are going to score extra for a dominant round where do knockdowns come into play? I mean if an opponent pounds away like Cotto did against Clottey in that round where he had him up against the ropes does he score more for that round than he did the first round where Clottey was probably edging it until being floored by a jab?
Using your argument I guess the first round would be even despite the knockdown as Clottey had the better of it whilst the round where Clottey back up against the ropes would be 10-8 in favour of Cotto.
Already I'm confused and the sitution would likely only get worse.
No it wouldn't.
People always find a way to cheat no matter the game.
of course it doesn't, but that begs the question doesn't it? I'm arguing against the current situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboYes but the current system doesn't necessitate that we differentiate between a big round and a close round, other than knockdowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMI can't argue against your first two paragraphs, cause it's just an opinion, as is mine, except that you might well ask why do they score it 10-8 for every flash knockdown. But paragraph three implies there is no reasonable way to differentiate between a dominant round and an "edged" round, or that judges, and that includes you and me, are inherently incapable of dealing with the situation, which I don't accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
it doesn't happen often enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
again, that begs the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
your logic here is questionable at best. No it does not follow that there would be more dodgy decisions. We have three judges so that these sorts of discrepancies tend to even out, the point being that two out of three judges are likely to get it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
You're plucking things from thin air. All I said was a system which recognizes a dominant round as opposed to a close round. I haven't said exactly how it is to be defined. We haven't defined the system so how can it discriminate against a particular style?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
huh? Nothing I've proposed suggests anything of the kind, but now that you mention it, I would question whether or not a knockdown should be an automatic 10-8, depending on what else happened in the round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Yeah, I can see that you are confused. That ain't my fault. You're just dreaming up ways to complicate the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
And Majesty your point about cheating is taken, but I don't think it's that good. Why have a referee and three judges and all kinds of onlookers and cornermen, if none of them can do anything about cheating? Besides, one can cheat under any system, are you suggesting that the current system is designed to minimize cheating.
[quote=CGM;746436][quote=Bilbo;746426]Can you not see that you're deviating from the true goal of boxing which is to knock your opponent out?Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
Scoring is only necessary in the event of a non decision i.e no stoppage before the fight ends, its the not the primary goal of the sport. Like in chess checkmate overrules any strategic or positional advantages acumalated during the fight.
for health and safety reasons and to be able to score in the event of a non result fights are split into rounds and a record is kept of who in the judges eyes won a particular round.
Knockdowns score points, as they should, as knocking your opponent to the canvas is the primary goal of boxing, much like a goal in football (soccer).
One team can spend 15 minutes camped in their own half desperately defending with shots hitting the crossbar and coming back off the post, but if the opposition team doesn't score the goal (knockdown) they get no credit for it, because strategic advantages (just like in chess and boxing) are not the primary goal of the sport itself but rather a way to achieve the primary goal.
In my mind if a fighter puts his opponent down he wins the round 10-8 without any discussion as he has achieved the goal of boxing, which is to put your opponent down. If the opponent has outboxed him for most of the round all he is doing (to make another chess analagy) is making use of the his strategic, positional advantages to try ang get a material gain (knockdown) or checkmate (ko).
If he doesn't convert his advantage in a round into either of these he certainly shouldn't be awarded double points in a round for 'dominating' imo.
The current system has a simplicity about it which is necessary I believe, 10-9 for winning the round, 10-8 for scoring a knockdown etc.
It's lasted for a hundred years or so because it works for the most part.
[QUOTE=Bilbo;746446][quote=CGM;746436]Thank you for illuminating for me the true nature of boxing. By golly no, it never occurred to me that a knockout is the true goal, and all other issues are secondary, and therefore there is no point in differentiating between whatever. You logic is astounding. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
You chess analogy is absurd. it's apples and oranges. Ultimately, it is within the control of eitehr player to force the game to one and only one decisive conclusion. It's obviously not the same with boxing.
Anyways, you continue to argue against my suggestion by begging the question. Maybe you impress yourself and a few others with that kind of argument, but I really don't have the patience.
[quote=CGM;746457][quote=Bilbo;746446]You always get so tetchy CGM simply unable to have a disagreement with anyone about anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
The boxing rules as they stand are fine. If a boxer outboxes his opponent he wins the round 10-9, if he knocks him down he scores 10-8 that's the way it SHOULD be.
This simple scoring method has been workable for 100 years and is a lot less subjective than having judges deciding how much one fighter beat another in each round.
If judges can disagree on any given round with 3 simple options, Fighter A, Fighter B, or even how much more are they likely to disagree when given the choice of Figher A wins by 1 point, Fighter A wins by 2 points, Fighter B wins by 1 point, Fighter B wins by 2 point, the round is even.
Multiply that by 12 rounds you are giving judges another potential 24 differences of opinion over the course of a fight. How you think this would lead to more fair, balanced and less dodgy decisions is completely beyond me.
Please explain how you think the judges are competent enough to score correctly in your new 5 selection choices per round scoring method but are incompetent to score correctly in the current 3 selection choices per round scoring method?
And if you try and argue that the judges do an ok job now then why change a system that is clearly working?
Can you give a single fight example in history where a blatent robbery occurred but that the fight would have been correctly scored in favour of the true winner if only the judges has 5 selection choices per round instead of 3?
You accuse me of begging the question and faulty logic but the burden of proof is not on me. This has been the system to score fights for the best part of 100 years, it's part of the very traditions of boxing. If you want to change it and usher in a revolutionary new scoring system then surely you need to have outstanding and damning evidence against the workability of the current system. If that is the case, then lets hear it. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnmc10
It just wouldn't work. What if the two wider judges gave it to the same guy whilst 2 of the remaining 3 gave it to the other guy? So on guy wins on three cards but loses on two, although two of his winning cards are wider than the other 3 so they don't count. So even though he wins 3 cards out of five he loses because two of the judges felt he won more decisively than the other judges, what kind of logic would that be?
Here's a scenario based on 5 judges for Cotto Clottely.
Judge 1 114-113 Clottey
Judge 2 115-112 Cotto
Judge 3 116 -112 Cotto
Judge 4 116-112 Cotto
Judge 5 114-113 Clottey
According to your logic here who would win? Would they throw out the two 116-112 scores and so rule Clottey the winner by split decision even though he got only 2 of the 5 votes or would they remove the two 114-113 scores for Clottey in which case Cotto wins by a unanimous decision and the problem you sought to avoid has only been exageratted further, you see if two scores are clearly wrong but the third score is closer to the clearly wrong scores than the two 'correct' scores then the correct scores would get thrown out and the undeserving fighter wins by an even bigger unanimous decision.
Not that I thought Cotto was undeserving I think he deserved to win I'm just highlight how having 5 judges wouldn't make the situation any better at all and possibly a whole lot worse.
As long as there is money involved in sports there will always be shadyness.....it's not the scoring system it's the people in the system that are the problem. Make a new fool proof system and i'll find you a fool that will break it.
youre right i guess making it a 5 judge decision will only make things worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
based on your example judges 1 and 5 agrees that clottey won while judges 3 and 4 for cotto judge 2 is for cotto so cotto wins!
what i was hoping for a 5 judge system was to weed out judges who didnt scored the fight accurately. it doesnt matter if one judge scored it with a huge margin like 115-110 as long as another judge scored similar like 115-111
[QUOTE=Bilbo;746446][quote=CGM;746436]As much as I agree with you within the context of scoring bouts, I have to point out that you are inadvertantly making a case for that of punchers being favoured in scoring, given the opinion that the main goal of a fight is to knock your opponent out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Has Boxing not moved away from this notion?
I believe that the problem has always been the the execution/interpretation of the system and how it is left to be massaged as opposed to the system it self.Their simply is no follow through and consequences handed down from state commissions and Promoters etc for clearly faulty results that are in error.......more often than not one gets the impression that the influence sways to a promotions 'house' fighter,almost an unspoken fact that has gone on for ages.They need to review these judges and should a card be handed in that is clearly off the mark from the majority...have them analyze the fight and break it down as to how that conclusion was arrived at.Review and cause and effect is key.Look for patterns.These are not just a open and close affair...these shite decisions effect a guys career and finances in each and every case.
Not sure about scoring a round in a lesser degree for being close or wide.They need to focus concern on just getting the round to the deserved fighter in the first place.Sort of expecting them to before they have learned to walk properly.They should also review the use of referees as judges on the same card.Sort of blurs the lines in a very short time frame.
[quote=Jimboogie;746788][quote=Bilbo;746446]Not at all, I actually think a new scoring method with judges able to award more points for dominating the round would favour punchers more as obviously light punching, elusive types like Calderon, Spinks, Malignaggi, Mayweather at the higher weights etc are less likely to have massively one sided rounds than huge punching or fast relentless tpye fighters like Pacquaio, Pavlik etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
The current system is completely fine imo. If you outbox your opponent over the course of a round you will win the round 10-9. If you knock them down you will win the round 10-8 (which is fair as a knockdown is a tangible material gain).
But if you dominate a round, throwing and landing far more than your opponent but he doesn't go down or take a knee then you still only win the round 10-9. That's the way it should be, that's the strategy that fighters work to, sometimes taking a round off to catch their breath etc.
To use the Cotto Clottey fight again, when Cotto had Clottey on the ropes for an entire round he was totally dominating the round, but the correct score for the round is still only 10-9 Cotto because he didn't floor Clottey in that round. That's the way it should be.
Each round is a seperate mini event and the idea of being able to score more winning your rounds than you opponent does winning his (without kncokdowns and point deductions) would just make for frankly ridiculous scoring results.
You could easily imagine a fight like Marquez Pacquaio 2 being scored completely differently by each of the three judges under such rules, one giving Pacquaio double points for most of the rounds he won, Marquez only getting single points for his rounds or vice versa. A close fight could end up reading as a total domination and UD for one guy thanks to the new complications of the system.