Scoring partial rounds ?

[Spicoli]

We've seen it on occasion due to injury and other circumstances but what's your take on it? It happened again last night in the 10th round if Corrales vs Castellanos and the 30 seconds scored looked the difference between a draw and Corrales win. Head butt caused cut under the eye. Is it a matter of scoring what you have to work with..paying attention or should at least a third of a round be completed to include it so it doesn't boil down to mere seconds, similar to requiring 4 rounds be complete before 'going to score cards' in similar injury scenario. Or the shortened round tossed out all together as incomplete? In fights so close just feels bogus to come down to 30 seconds but can see both sides.

[Ron Swanson]

I also see both sides. But I don't think partial rounds should be scored at all. It doesn't account for strategy. A fighter might be planning to be slow the first 2 minutes and control the 3rd minute.

[Master]

I would not count the round at all if it has not been completed.

[TitoFan]

Well intentioned.... but judges seem to have a hard enough time scoring full rounds... imagine giving them the added flexibility of scoring partial rounds. You may as well ask some of them to solve abstract algebra problems. I've suggested other methods, such as finer scoring increments (adding a decimal place, for instance)... but in the long run, it's only some basic steps with the current system that will fix what's wrong in scoring. First, clean it up. Remove the possibility of corruption with the judges. Second, reward the good and address the bad. If one judge constantly falls outside of the norm with respect to scoring... there's something wrong with his criteria. Fix it, or remove him. Finally, provide constant training.

[Spicoli]

Well intentioned.... but judges seem to have a hard enough time scoring full rounds... imagine giving them the added flexibility of scoring partial rounds. You may as well ask some of them to solve abstract algebra problems. I've suggested other methods, such as finer scoring increments (adding a decimal place, for instance)... but in the long run, it's only some basic steps with the current system that will fix what's wrong in scoring. First, clean it up. Remove the possibility of corruption with the judges. Second, reward the good and address the bad. If one judge constantly falls outside of the norm with respect to scoring... there's something wrong with his criteria. Fix it, or remove him. Finally, provide constant training.

It would definitely seem like putting the cart before the horse when it comes to counting on many judges to enforce what is already in existence, the accuracy of a full round etc. Review and accountability is key to me, as with anyone who answers at a job- occupation. Partial scoring is asking for inaccuracy or early distraction, everything from corner men still walking down stairs to forgotten mouth pieces and ref starting round. Not to mention how a flash KD could be counted and no opportunity to balance out second half. Just seems screw ball.

[TitoFan]

Well intentioned.... but judges seem to have a hard enough time scoring full rounds... imagine giving them the added flexibility of scoring partial rounds. You may as well ask some of them to solve abstract algebra problems. I've suggested other methods, such as finer scoring increments (adding a decimal place, for instance)... but in the long run, it's only some basic steps with the current system that will fix what's wrong in scoring. First, clean it up. Remove the possibility of corruption with the judges. Second, reward the good and address the bad. If one judge constantly falls outside of the norm with respect to scoring... there's something wrong with his criteria. Fix it, or remove him. Finally, provide constant training.

It would definitely seem like putting the cart before the horse when it comes to counting on many judges to enforce what is already in existence, the accuracy of a full round etc. Review and accountability is key to me, as with anyone who answers at a job- occupation. Partial scoring is asking for inaccuracy or early distraction, everything from corner men still walking down stairs to forgotten mouth pieces and ref starting round. Not to mention how a flash KD could be counted and no opportunity to balance out second half. Just seems screw ball.

You know one fix that might work? More judges. Bigger sample size... less chance for a horrible decision. I know, it's been discussed also. But it makes sense. This alone would probably be why boxing wouldn't do it.

[powerpuncher]

Some fighters have the strategy to start the round slow and finish strong, so it becomes unfair that a fighter loses a round because he doesn't get to fight the whole round. Although I'm fine with scoring the round if 2 minutes have passed.

[Spicoli]

Well intentioned.... but judges seem to have a hard enough time scoring full rounds... imagine giving them the added flexibility of scoring partial rounds. You may as well ask some of them to solve abstract algebra problems. I've suggested other methods, such as finer scoring increments (adding a decimal place, for instance)... but in the long run, it's only some basic steps with the current system that will fix what's wrong in scoring. First, clean it up. Remove the possibility of corruption with the judges. Second, reward the good and address the bad. If one judge constantly falls outside of the norm with respect to scoring... there's something wrong with his criteria. Fix it, or remove him. Finally, provide constant training.

It would definitely seem like putting the cart before the horse when it comes to counting on many judges to enforce what is already in existence, the accuracy of a full round etc. Review and accountability is key to me, as with anyone who answers at a job- occupation. Partial scoring is asking for inaccuracy or early distraction, everything from corner men still walking down stairs to forgotten mouth pieces and ref starting round. Not to mention how a flash KD could be counted and no opportunity to balance out second half. Just seems screw ball.

You know one fix that might work? More judges. Bigger sample size... less chance for a horrible decision. I know, it's been discussed also. But it makes sense. This alone would probably be why boxing wouldn't do it.

Dunno, think it all comes down to fixing foundation before adding on. Quality over quantity sort of thing. I honestly didn't even try to score the 10th so bigger fix would make sure they are all aware it arises though rare as the ref seems unclear when it goes there. Have no doubt when hastily shortened like that some just throw their hands up or read score back to know the direction, cynical I know

[Spicoli]

Some fighters have the strategy to start the round slow and finish strong, so it becomes unfair that a fighter loses a round because he doesn't get to fight the whole round. Although I'm fine with scoring the round if 2 minutes have passed.

Based on majority passing and being in? Def makes sense. I'm still trying to find a unified rule or commission to commission. Under the ABC rules a partial round states 'If no action occurs round should be scored even but left to discretion of judges' Man that's loaded.

[Fenster]

It doesn't make sense, never has never will. It's like a rule that wasn't thought of until the first situation arose so they just winged it on the spot and it became the norm.

"Bad" judging will never stop unless a totally new system is implemented so everyone can start again from scratch.

Apart from the odd "mistake" by judges - What one man thinks is "bad" scoring another thinks is perfect. Just look at any rd-by-rd thread, read what people regard as "ring generalship" (lol). Generally fans are not just biased towards a particular fighter but styles, so positives and negatives are purely in the eye of the beholder.

There's not a single person on here that wouldn't be totally ridiculed if their weekly scorecards were put under scrutiny, like the official scorers are.

[TitoFan]

"Totally new system" is probably what we need.
If we're talking starting from scratch, here's some things I would implement:
(of course, money is no object here)


1. Remove bias from judging as much as possible. Judges for fights are picked strictly by the commission, based on merit alone. Considerations are included regarding nationality. I think we all know what that means.

2. Implement training and refreshing sessions for judges. Other professions do it. It's a way to keep the professionals up to date and sharp. This is a no-brainer for me.

3. Keep score. No, not the fights, but the judges' performance. Again... if Judge A consistently scores fights outside of the norm, he's off the curve. Something is wrong with him and it must be corrected, or else remove him. Again... like any other job.

4. Increase the number of judges, at least on championship fights. The stakes are too high. Add another judge on the 4th side, then a 5th judge for good measure. The 5th judge can sit a few rows back from one of the others, provided with an unobstructed view.



We do too much whining about scoring without anything being done. Bad scoring exists, and the frustrating part is that nothing is ever done about it. Back to the money argument. There's plenty of money in boxing. It flows like water. It wouldn't take much of an effort to earmark some of that for the improvement of the sport.