I actually agree with the system they have now. I prefer them to pick a winner for each round. But I was putting in mind those fights that are close, where judges can see it so differently. In a very very even round, a good judge can look for those subtleties, for sure.. So say, you pick, someone was more controlling with the jab,,, that's a winner of the round for me.. Another judge seeing the same fight isn't that impressed with the jab.. Sure it's keeping the other guy back, but it's not doing any damage, and the other guy hasn't looked phased by it.. He's actually gotten in a few times and landed some decent shots.. So he's going to give it to the other fighter. This goes on for 8 rounds. And there is probably a large gap on the 2 judges scorecards now.. They are both good judges and can pick subtleties out which put one fighter over the edge each round.. But what subtleties are they? They are not the same..

Generally though, I think between 3 judges they get the winner right most of the time.. In a very close fight, it's these subtleties that can go either way, depeneding on how they see the fight.. The robberies.. Where they see subtleties for one fighter, and you see them for another.
There are 6 or 7 close rounds that could go either way,,, they score them one way, you score them another, and at the end someone wins convincingly and we have 3 threads saying how shit the judges are and how etc etc easily won 4 or 5 of those close rounds.. And even if they didn't win, the margin is still way to much.. Some people complain that the scores at the end are wayyyyy out, yet 3/4 of the fight was very even and could go either way, so way can't they all go one way?

The point i'm saying is, in a bunch of even rounds, judges usually do a good job of picking out things a fighter did to give the round to them... Just the judges can easily pick different things and give the round to different fighters.... If it was easy, then it wasn't a close round.. You have to take your pick of a more dominant jab, or more power punches... Unless there is a set of rules set out saying that in a close round, the jab is more important, ring control is more important, aggressiveness is more important,,, then the judges can score a fight hugely different and neither will really be wrong.. It's how they perceive the subleties...

This is just food for thought.. I think the 10-9 round is a part of boxing, and sport.. Every sport has judges or umpires or referee's and they are human... They are trusted to use their judgement and sometimes it may not be right. Sometimes their judgement can affect the result of a match.
So I guess if in a very close round, they can find some small subtle reason why one fighter should be awarded the round, then that's what they should do... If they are encouraged to do that, then i'm sure they'll pick something that puts one fighter ahead....


I guess THAT may be the new point of the topic.. In a very every close round, what subtle things would a judge look for to give a round to a certain fighter, and why do the judges sometimes see different things and give it to different fighters?