Nevada changes rules

[CGM]

i'm just thinking out loud here but in the judges' scoring i think it would be good to add a .5 option to the scores. it would still be a 10 point must system and a very close round can be scored 10-9.5. a kd would still be an automatic 10-8 round, 2 kds still a 10-7 and so on and so forth but adding the 1/2 point option to define the scoring in every round would imo give more flexibility and refinement to the system. what do you think?

I like your ideas here. I too would like to see changes that would recognize the difference between a fighter barely winning a round and a fighter clearly winning a round.

[KKisser]

I understand your logic, but I think it would add a layer of complexity that's not necessary. There should however be a way to prove that judges understand the criteria on which they are judging. I also think that you should not be allowed to give 10-10 rounds, you are there to judge, make a decision.

it's really not that complex. it's just a half point that would separate a close round especially where a 10-10 round is not allowed.

Hard to say.. I've always thought maybe an adjustment to encourage them to score more rounds even would be a help... Judges generally do a good job, but we've seen clearly so many times they they have an equal ability to f'k it up, and as it stands the way they score is pretty simple.. So I kind of thing making it any more complicated even in the slightest is just going to make it harder on judges scoring accurately, but maybe the opposite..


On a side note, it spins me out when i'm reading a thread getting into it and then suddenly I see someone giving someone else a CC... I'm like WTF, either they are trying to be nostalgic, or it's an old old thread... either way it messes with my brain every time

bad judging will always be a problem and they'll screw it up whatever the system of scoring is. the thing is if you have good judges and you have a better system of scoring a fight, it would only augers well for the sport.

and yup, i still have my boy bestp4p up there to give you a clue that this thread has been dug up from the grave.

I like your ideas here. I too would like to see changes that would recognize the difference between a fighter barely winning a round and a fighter clearly winning a round.

thanks. i really think the organizations should do something about the system and the quality of judges as well, as there have been several fights ending in dubious and outrageous decisions which just messes up the sport.

[CGM]

Why piss around with half points? You've got 10 points to work with, why not use a few of them.

[killersheep]

I understand your logic, but I think it would add a layer of complexity that's not necessary. There should however be a way to prove that judges understand the criteria on which they are judging. I also think that you should not be allowed to give 10-10 rounds, you are there to judge, make a decision.

it's really not that complex. it's just a half point that would separate a close round especially where a 10-10 round is not allowed.

What's the gain here though? How would a 10-9.5 round be better than a 10-9 round? I think things should be much more simple and binary you won the round or you didn't.

[RP33]

I understand your logic, but I think it would add a layer of complexity that's not necessary. There should however be a way to prove that judges understand the criteria on which they are judging. I also think that you should not be allowed to give 10-10 rounds, you are there to judge, make a decision.

it's really not that complex. it's just a half point that would separate a close round especially where a 10-10 round is not allowed.

What's the gain here though? How would a 10-9.5 round be better than a 10-9 round? I think things should be much more simple and binary you won the round or you didn't.

right.. i think this is the reason that 10-10 rounds are not allowed sometimes.. simply because it is too "easy" to say what you are saying, "it was a really close round, hard to pick a winner, so i give it a 10-10" If we had the 9.5 in effect, i believe that would work the same way, and be overused.. at least with a bout where 10-10's are not awarded, you are forcing the judges to pick a winner of the round.. their decision of the winner is obviously disputed at times, but don't you think there would be even more arguments if someone "clearly" won a round, and they received a 10-9.5 instead of winning it 10-9? I just see more issues arising if this were the case..

[KKisser]

it's really not that complex. it's just a half point that would separate a close round especially where a 10-10 round is not allowed.

What's the gain here though? How would a 10-9.5 round be better than a 10-9 round? I think things should be much more simple and binary you won the round or you didn't.

right.. i think this is the reason that 10-10 rounds are not allowed sometimes.. simply because it is too "easy" to say what you are saying, "it was a really close round, hard to pick a winner, so i give it a 10-10" If we had the 9.5 in effect, i believe that would work the same way, and be overused.. at least with a bout where 10-10's are not awarded, you are forcing the judges to pick a winner of the round.. their decision of the winner is obviously disputed at times, but don't you think there would be even more arguments if someone "clearly" won a round, and they received a 10-9.5 instead of winning it 10-9? I just see more issues arising if this were the case..

good point. but in an ideal world where judges would actually call it fairly it would be better don't you think.

[RP33]

What's the gain here though? How would a 10-9.5 round be better than a 10-9 round? I think things should be much more simple and binary you won the round or you didn't.

right.. i think this is the reason that 10-10 rounds are not allowed sometimes.. simply because it is too "easy" to say what you are saying, "it was a really close round, hard to pick a winner, so i give it a 10-10" If we had the 9.5 in effect, i believe that would work the same way, and be overused.. at least with a bout where 10-10's are not awarded, you are forcing the judges to pick a winner of the round.. their decision of the winner is obviously disputed at times, but don't you think there would be even more arguments if someone "clearly" won a round, and they received a 10-9.5 instead of winning it 10-9? I just see more issues arising if this were the case..

good point. but in an ideal world where judges would actually call it fairly it would be better don't you think.

yes, i'd agree with you if that were the case haha.. unfortunately, you know how it goes and i feel that the more power we give judges, the more it will be abused, and from my perspective, with all of this in mind, giving fractions of a point would be taking a step backwards..

I do think that fights would be closer and maybe more accurate with this system, but playing devil's advocate, you can also see how some fights that aren't so close, end up being a lot closer on the cards with this system..

[The Fightfan]

I like most of it except the 10 oz gloves for 130 and above. Sure their were two boxer's who died last year but what about the year before or before that. This is a sport were both fighter's try to knock each other out. Now we will probably have to watch more desicion's with fighter's around 130 and up to 160. The reason they did this to begin with is because even with 8 oz gloves they looked like pillow's on these fighter's and extra 2 ounces I believe will make a difference in less knockout's, less fan appeal once again to the lower weight classes.

[KKisser]

I understand your logic, but I think it would add a layer of complexity that's not necessary. There should however be a way to prove that judges understand the criteria on which they are judging. I also think that you should not be allowed to give 10-10 rounds, you are there to judge, make a decision.

it's really not that complex. it's just a half point that would separate a close round especially where a 10-10 round is not allowed.

What's the gain here though? How would a 10-9.5 round be better than a 10-9 round? I think things should be much more simple and binary you won the round or you didn't.

there are rounds where it would be too close to call and where a 10-10 round is not allowed, a judge can make a decision base on the usual criteria but giving just a half point advantage to a fighter. in that way, the other fighter has the chance to make up for it by winning clearly in the suceeding rounds.

for example,
1st round: 10-9, for fighter A (a close round that should be 10-10)
2nd round: 10-9, for fighter B (a clear round)
score up to this point: 19-19

in this scenario, they would be tied in the scorecard whereas fighter B should actually be leading.

now with the .5,
1st round: 10-9.5, for fighter A (close round but given to the fighter who did a little more.
2nd round: 10-9, for fighter B (clear round scored for fighter B)
score up to this point: 19.5-19 (advantage to fighter B)
see the difference? this time fighter B would be justifiably leading albeit by a small margin.

[killersheep]

it's really not that complex. it's just a half point that would separate a close round especially where a 10-10 round is not allowed.

What's the gain here though? How would a 10-9.5 round be better than a 10-9 round? I think things should be much more simple and binary you won the round or you didn't.

there are rounds where it would be too close to call and where a 10-10 round is not allowed, a judge can make a decision base on the usual criteria but giving just a half point advantage to a fighter. in that way, the other fighter has the chance to make up for it by winning clearly in the suceeding rounds.

for example,
1st round: 10-9, for fighter A (a close round that should be 10-10)
2nd round: 10-9, for fighter B (a clear round)
score up to this point: 19-19

in this scenario, they would be tied in the scorecard whereas fighter B should actually be leading.

now with the .5,
1st round: 10-9.5, for fighter A (close round but given to the fighter who did a little more.
2nd round: 10-9, for fighter B (clear round scored for fighter B)
score up to this point: 19.5-19 (advantage to fighter B)
see the difference? this time fighter B would be justifiably leading albeit by a small margin.

Although I disagree with it, I do applaud your effort. I think it merits trying to rescore old fights using your method and putting it into practice.

[Trainer Monkey]

Its an old story,and its a mixed bag.
Theres some language in there,that I guarantee you is designed to freeze people out on licensing,just like PA's antiquated morality clause .
Ive never had a problem with sports drinks,just write it in to the contract what brand,and have them delivered sealed and checked by the commission rep.Dehydration is one of the biggest killers in the ring.
I dont have a problem with the glove poundage change either,I hate 8 ouncers,their an accident or a death looking for a place to happen.

[Boom Boom]

Wow. That is a HUGE change, as especially for the Welterweight, and light Welterweight divisions. The size of the glove will definately change the dynamic of the fights. Fighting with 8oz gloves at 147 and 10oz gloves at 154, I can honestly say that at 147 you can feel the punches more, even though its at a lighter weight. I think thats why we see so many KOs and KDs in those divisions.

[RP33]

am i the only one who noticed this thread was made over 2 years ago?

have these rules not gone into effect already?

[Trainer Monkey]

am i the only one who noticed this thread was made over 2 years ago?

have these rules not gone into effect already?

Check the first line of my post

[RP33]

am i the only one who noticed this thread was made over 2 years ago?

have these rules not gone into effect already?

Check the first line of my post

oh, i thought you just meant that the whole glove size and death stuff is an "old story"..

so, these rules have been in effect already, correct? If that's true, then clearly it has not made TOO much of a difference considering we really had not even noticed that this happened two years ago lol..