Scoring standards reform?

[El Gamo]

http://www.fightnews.com/koizumi380.htm

By Joe Koizumi

This is to suggest that the current scoring standard be reformed for the sake of better decisions to be accepted by the general public, not only by the ringsiders. I was a TV commentator for the Oscar De La Hoya versus Floyd Mayweather Jr. fight on a live telecast in Japan. I, along with great majority of TV watchers, thought De La Hoya the winner because of his continual aggressiveness.

During the broadcast in Japan, after the eighth round we were shocked to hear an HBO commentator's intermediate score of 77-75 in favor of Mayweather, as we saw De La Hoya winning by 78-74 by watching the screen signaled from Las Vegas. We admit it was a close affair in the end due to Mayweather's surge in the last four rounds. It was also surprising that many ringsiders favored Mayweather as the winner even if it was close.

Usually boxing bouts are broadcast by TV people and reported by press people. Where do they watch the fights? At ringside, of course. They are limited "RINGSIDERS." Assume a situation that some 1,000 ringsiders around the ring see Boxer A as the winner, while people in the balcony and TV watchers around the world, on the contrary, see Boxer B as the winner. It actually happened in the case of "The World Awaits" in Las Vegas.

Boxing is a sport to be watched not only by limited ringsiders but by the general public in the world. People cannot afford to pay $2,000 to buy a ringside ticket, so they watch the fight on TV. Ideally, the views of the ringsiders and the general public should be identical. Ironically, however, the current scoring standard sometimes makes the respective views different.

The scoring standard consists of: (1) clean effective hits, (2) aggressiveness, (3) defense, and (4) ring generalship. Furthermore, there is a tendency that even a very close round is given to either of the two boxers. It may be sometimes difficult to judge whether a certain punch (or combination) was effective or not, and which of the boxers was superior in terms of ring generalship. People watching from the second floor or on TV feel that the aggressor should be the winner. But the ringsiders, including the judges, see it differently in favor of the other boxer. It means that the rich and the poor see a different thing in the same fight.

Yours truly wonders if the current declining popularity of boxing may be caused partly by the complex scoring standard or its understanding. The judges occasionally pick a winner that people don't agree with. Then TV watchers and/or majority of spectators (except ringsiders) get disgusted and frustrated by the decision.

Boxing should be simpler to the eyes of all the general public in order to regain its popularity. Boxing used to be a manly sport to compare strength, speed, fighting spirit, durability and skills. But it is turning into a different sport since the current scoring standard evaluates slick-punching and sly boxers more favorably than game and aggressive punchers. In the near future all world champs may become Floyd Mayweather stylists.

We may have to reconsider the current scoring standard, its application, or the validity of forcibly scoring an even definitely close round for one of the contestants, etc. in order to revive the popularity of boxing among the general public.

Is he right about the part highlighted

[BoxingGorilla]

I don't think all future champs will be like Mayweather because they won't have the same natural abilities. Holt fights like Mayweather but he isn't Mayweather by any stretch. If that makes sense...

Mayweather isn't unbeatable and will only set the standard for fighters whose talent orders them to fight that way.

[hackey100]

Perspective determines opinion, that cannot be argued with. Changing the scoring to suit the many is good, if those changes will actually work. In fact, let's have this debated:

Who has the better view of a fight?

a) Ringside viewers

b) Television viewers (with volume off)

Personally, I believe that television viewers win here. They have the advantage of replays to help colour their opinion, however it must be noted that biased commentary does counter this advantage to a degree.*

[TheBESTP4P]

thats interesting, but it seems like just his opinion

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

My god
HaS boxing really gotten that bad for this guy.
Maybe, like in the theatre's we should have Ushers supplying Binocculars?

[Punisher136]

It was scored correctly. You cannot have fights scored for aimless agression. Some of oscars punches did land but most of them were ineffective. Making the socring system like that would basically be telling boxers to just throw aimlessly (like they do in mma) and the judge will give you the go ahead for that round even tho you're opponent blocked and countered you the whole round. Yeah those fighters that are all offense might be fun to watch during their prime but they are the ones that end up with the brain injuries because they don't know how to block a punch.

[luvfightgame]

Perspective determines opinion, that cannot be argued with. Changing the scoring to suit the many is good, if those changes will actually work. In fact, let's have this debated:

Who has the better view of a fight?

a) Ringside viewers

b) Television viewers (with volume off)

Personally, I believe that television viewers win here. They have the advantage of replays to help colour their opinion, however it must be noted that biased commentary does counter this advantage to a degree.*

I agree with your opinion. Mainly television offers a better view than ringside. The only thing missing is the sounds of the impact of punches. Ringside you can gauge better if a punch hurt the guy. My example is Mosley-ODH 2. Most ringsiders felt Mosley won because they could hear ODH grunting when he got hit.

I don't really think it is possible to make scoring better. It's always an opinion. No matter how you slice it. It's a beauty contest unless there is a ko.

[El Gamo]

Perspective determines opinion, that cannot be argued with. Changing the scoring to suit the many is good, if those changes will actually work. In fact, let's have this debated:

Who has the better view of a fight?

a) Ringside viewers

b) Television viewers (with volume off)

Personally, I believe that television viewers win here. They have the advantage of replays to help colour their opinion, however it must be noted that biased commentary does counter this advantage to a degree.*

CC,EXCELLENT post.