20 Point Championship Rounds

[amat]

So this is a bit out there but was thinking of ways to change the scoring system, I think the best system is in place it's just that robberies like Chavez-Whitaker or Lewis-Holyfield come down to the judges' incompetence and that's the end of that. How to deal with that is another issue.

It's the close decisions that go a way most think they shouldn't is another thing. Fights like Barrera-Marquez, Pacquiao-Marquez and Taylor-Hopkins, fights that are close but scored opposite of what the majority think it should have been.

Then I began to think about the last fight. Taylor - Hopkins, a fight that Taylor won a lot of early rounds, arguably equal to the number late rounds that Hopkins won. But it's hard to find ANYONE willing to say Taylor won the fight or at least earned a draw even though Hopkins didn't start fighting until the 7th round. But he dominated the second half of the fight.

Then I started to think about why there seems to be more questionable verdicts now then there were before during the championship round era. Now, 13-15 are gone and now it's left at 12 and there just isn't much margine anymore for a dominating performance. Meaning a fighter can win twice as many rounds as his opponent but still have to bite his nails at the decision where if you win you won twice as many rounds, there is a much wider margin of error for judges. If that makes sense.

So I thought, what would happen if we rewarded the championship rounds, rounds 10-12, 20 points, so it would become a 20-18 round if you win instead of a 10-9, thus greatly rewarding the rounds that most often stick in the minds of fight fans the day after.

How would this change some of the recent controversial decisions? Would this go anywhere in solving the judging problems of today? Should all rounds get equal representation on the scorecards? Any other thoughts?

I don't really believe it just was brainstorming and felt this idea to be worth posting. I don't know but I think the time to be figuring out new solutions to judging is coming because as good as the 10-9 scoring system seems to be and despite how much sense it makes, is it working? I'm not sure about that and think that it needs to keep being altered and experimented with to see what works the best.

[Violent Demise]

The WBU tried that 20 point shitt before. It was no different. All you got were scores like 236-232 instead of 116-112.

[amat]

The WBU tried that 20 point shitt before. It was no different. All you got were scores like 236-232 instead of 116-112.

But what if you did it for just the last rounds so you get scores more similar to the 15 round tallies.

[Fenster]

That would make things worse.

It would favour stronger finishers, which virtually everyone could be if they wanted too.. the early rounds in every fight would become virtually pointless

[Kev]

I agree with Fenster, and actually it could lead to more bad decisions not less.

A fighter may be coasting to victory over the first 10 rounds, but his opponent is competitive over the final two and now mus await an agonising decision.

By the way, Taylor CLEARLY won the first Hopkins fight, old Pop's didn't do nearly enough to win and even his late surge was less impressive when watched a second and third time around, Taylor held his own imo.

No way a robbery, you simply can't expect to be able to do literally nothing for the first half of a fight and expect to win a decision. I'm glad he lost, he deserved to.