Quote Originally Posted by killersheep View Post
Quote Originally Posted by KKisser View Post
Quote Originally Posted by killersheep View Post

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.