Would an improved scoring system reduce "dodgy decisions"?

[CGM]

Make a vote and give your reasons if you want. I vote yes, because as it stands there is no room to differentiate between a fighter clearly winning a round and a fighter barely winning a round. Clearly winning a round should count for more than barely winning a round.

[TheDemolitionDan]

A scoring system like in the Olympics? No, RJJ was robbed in the Olympics....now THAT was a robbery.

[Quinito]

I'm undecided. Pardon me for getting off the topic here little bit. But did anyone scored a 10-9 for Cotto in round 1 eventhough there was a knockdown?

[CGM]

A scoring system like in the Olympics? No, RJJ was robbed in the Olympics....now THAT was a robbery.

Point taken. No scoring system is going to overcome a dodgy judge. So we can't eliminate the possibility of dodgy judging altogether.

However, I still say that by allowing judges to differentiate between a clearly won round and a barely won round would eliminate a lot of situations where it looked like a fighter should have won, but ended up losing. So maybe the question could be, "would a changed scoring system reduce complaints about dodgy decisions?

[Youngblood]

I've always thought a better scoring system lays somewhere in the merging and tinkering of both AM computer scoring, and current professional scoring.

[Kev]

If we can't trust a judge to correctly score which fighter won a particular round then how are we supposed to believe they would be able to judge who won a round more dominantly than another fighter did their winning round?

I am completely opposed to any moves to complicate the scoring further.

At present judges can choose to award a round to either fighter, or score it even if they can't split. If they had to choose to award rounds extra points for a fighter being dominant then we would have far far more crazy scoring and far more complications.

It's clear to me that some judges could award a fight as a dominant round for one fighter and another could award it a dominant round for the other, the scoring system would be a bigger mess than ever.


In my opinion the current 10 points must system is fine. The only addition I would like is to allow the referee access to video footage between rounds to make judgements on close scores, i.e whether a knockdown, push or slip should be awarded, whether a fighter really committed an intentional foul etc.

Beyond that the scoring system is fine.

Imo its not the scoring system that is at fault, but rather some judges are either incompetent or else corrupt and favour the fighters whose promoters reward them with regular work, cozy hotels, nice little side benefits etc.


It also should be stressed above all else though that the number of genuine robberies is comparatively small.

What far more often occurs, (in the case of Toney Peter 1, Hopkins Calzaghe, Pacquaio Marquez 1&2, Cotto Clottey, Hopkins Taylor) is that the result is at odds with a particular posters opinion and so he cries robbery as if his own interperation is the correct and only way to view a fight.

None of the above for example were robberies irrespective of which way a poster here felt they went, they were just close fights and the winner depended on what type of boxing you like and what you tend to award points for.

[CGM]

So you see no value in differentiating between winning a round by a wide margin and winning it by a narrow margin?

[jamiebhoy]

So you see no value in differentiating between winning a round by a wide margin and winning it by a narrow margin?

my main problem with that would be dealing with the guys who know how to nick a round by looking busy in the last 30, people like SRL were experts at catching the judges eye late in the round so a final flurry could get you say a 10 -7 rounds just coz you avaided any hits early and then got busy late.

Maybe look at the amount of judges, you can't always see every punch dependant on where you are placed.

Possibly having the ref score too although he should be looking out to do his main job, British title fights used to be judged by the ref.

Also liked the idea on being able to view video footage between rounds to clarify something, but again you are reliant on whoever is in charge of the replays.Not to say anyone in the television company is crooked but it would raise concerns if something were 'missed"

[CGM]

So you see no value in differentiating between winning a round by a wide margin and winning it by a narrow margin?

my main problem with that would be dealing with the guys who know how to nick a round by looking busy in the last 30, people like SRL were experts at catching the judges eye late in the round so a final flurry could get you say a 10 -7 rounds just coz you avaided any hits early and then got busy late.

Maybe look at the amount of judges, you can't always see every punch dependant on where you are placed.

Possibly having the ref score too although he should be looking out to do his main job, British title fights used to be judged by the ref.

Also liked the idea on being able to view video footage between rounds to clarify something, but again you are reliant on whoever is in charge of the replays.Not to say anyone in the television company is crooked but it would raise concerns if something were 'missed"

I dunno, it just sounds to me like you are saying judges are incapable of judging what's really going on, and if that's the case, and I don't think it is, but if it is the case, then i can't really disagree with you, I can only say that no scoring system will overcome incompetent judging.

Myself, I'd like to think that a judge can tell the difference between a fighter clearly winning a round, and a fighter just nicking around.

[bzkfn]

No I see very little wrong with the current scoring system. Improved judges would reduce a dodgy decisions.

[BIG H]

I seriously believe that half of us on here are better judges of fights than the actual judges themselves. Maybe judges should have to wear noise cancelling headphones so that they are not swayed by the crowd etc

I always score fights better when I mute the sound

[mnmc10]

how about 5 judges and then get rid of two of the most off scores.
like

j1 10-9 boxer a
j2 10-4 boxer a
j3 10-6 boxer a
j4 10-8 boxer b
j5 10-9 boxer b

j2 and j3 are obviously watching a different fight while the others viewed it the same.

boxer b wins!

[mnmc10]

I seriously believe that half of us on here are better judges of fights than the actual judges themselves. Maybe judges should have to wear noise cancelling headphones so that they are not swayed by the crowd etc

I always score fights better when I mute the sound

thats why i never watch a pac fight on local tv. pinoy commentators are clearly for pac. like a simple jab from pac and the commentators will be like oh what a straight left it rocked pacs opponent bad. blehhh

[Bomp]

If we can't trust a judge to correctly score which fighter won a particular round then how are we supposed to believe they would be able to judge who won a round more dominantly than another fighter did their winning round?

I am completely opposed to any moves to complicate the scoring further.

At present judges can choose to award a round to either fighter, or score it even if they can't split. If they had to choose to award rounds extra points for a fighter being dominant then we would have far far more crazy scoring and far more complications.

It's clear to me that some judges could award a fight as a dominant round for one fighter and another could award it a dominant round for the other, the scoring system would be a bigger mess than ever.


In my opinion the current 10 points must system is fine. The only addition I would like is to allow the referee access to video footage between rounds to make judgements on close scores, i.e whether a knockdown, push or slip should be awarded, whether a fighter really committed an intentional foul etc.

Beyond that the scoring system is fine.

Imo its not the scoring system that is at fault, but rather some judges are either incompetent or else corrupt and favour the fighters whose promoters reward them with regular work, cozy hotels, nice little side benefits etc.


It also should be stressed above all else though that the number of genuine robberies is comparatively small.

What far more often occurs, (in the case of Toney Peter 1, Hopkins Calzaghe, Pacquaio Marquez 1&2, Cotto Clottey, Hopkins Taylor) is that the result is at odds with a particular posters opinion and so he cries robbery as if his own interperation is the correct and only way to view a fight.

None of the above for example were robberies irrespective of which way a poster here felt they went, they were just close fights and the winner depended on what type of boxing you like and what you tend to award points for.

Agree totally.

I see CGM's point though, and if judges were more prepared to score close rounds even then the massive swings in scoring would be avoided.

[Nameless]

I don't dislike the idea of scoring for a close round but to my opinion, the problem doesn't lay there especially, some changes that should be make include:

1) You should never have more than one judge from the same nationality as any of the boxers (except if both of the same nationality)

2) There should be an official camera system between rounds or something like that to clarify officially if there is a fall, a foul or something so those playing too dirty couldn't get away with it.

3) The referee in charge should have an evaluation after each fight and if he screws up things more than X in a specific laps of time, he should be out for a period of time. Of course, there would be a criteria grid for it and by screwing things up, I do not mean on a close call but something major.

4) THere should be ultimately a way to overturn a decision if it is wayyy too shabby (example Lucas-Beyer in Germany, fight I did assist); Once again, it shouldn't apply to close call but for matches where the alphabetic order apologises and order a rematch because the decision didn't make sense.