Would an improved scoring system reduce "dodgy decisions"?

[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!

[Kev]

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!

It just wouldn't work. What if the two wider judges gave it to the same guy whilst 2 of the remaining 3 gave it to the other guy? So on guy wins on three cards but loses on two, although two of his winning cards are wider than the other 3 so they don't count. So even though he wins 3 cards out of five he loses because two of the judges felt he won more decisively than the other judges, what kind of logic would that be?

Here's a scenario based on 5 judges for Cotto Clottely.

Judge 1 114-113 Clottey
Judge 2 115-112 Cotto
Judge 3 116 -112 Cotto
Judge 4 116-112 Cotto
Judge 5 114-113 Clottey

According to your logic here who would win? Would they throw out the two 116-112 scores and so rule Clottey the winner by split decision even though he got only 2 of the 5 votes or would they remove the two 114-113 scores for Clottey in which case Cotto wins by a unanimous decision and the problem you sought to avoid has only been exageratted further, you see if two scores are clearly wrong but the third score is closer to the clearly wrong scores than the two 'correct' scores then the correct scores would get thrown out and the undeserving fighter wins by an even bigger unanimous decision.

Not that I thought Cotto was undeserving I think he deserved to win I'm just highlight how having 5 judges wouldn't make the situation any better at all and possibly a whole lot worse.

[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

[CGM]

fair enough. I worded the original question wrong anyway. Dodgy kinda means "suspect", or "bad", which is not what I really intended.

I still say that dominating a round should be worth more than edging out or "knicking a round", and a lot of the dissatisfaction about decisions stems from the fact that there is no distinction between the two.

But hey, if people think that a distinction should not be made between a dominating round and a "knicked round", or that boxing people are incapable of telling the difference anyway, well there's not much I can say about that.

[Kev]

fair enough. I worded the original question wrong anyway. Dodgy kinda means "suspect", or "bad", which is not what I really intended.

I still say that dominating a round should be worth more than edging out or "knicking a round", and a lot of the dissatisfaction about decisions stems from the fact that there is no distinction between the two.

But hey, if people think that a distinction should not be made between a dominating round and a "knicked round", or that boxing people are incapable of telling the difference anyway, well there's not much I can say about that.

I don't think a distinction should be made. A fight is divided into rounds and the boxer who wins the most rounds wins the fight, unless knockdowns and point deductions come into effect.

To use an extreme example n tennis you could win a match 7-5, 0-6, 7-5, 0-6, 7-5 and win even though you have won far less actual games than your opponent and yet nobody would want to change that system.

If fighters could be awarded a greater or lesser number of points for the rounds they win it would pave the way to all kinds of bizarre and terrible scoring.

[CGM]

fair enough. I worded the original question wrong anyway. Dodgy kinda means "suspect", or "bad", which is not what I really intended.

I still say that dominating a round should be worth more than edging out or "knicking a round", and a lot of the dissatisfaction about decisions stems from the fact that there is no distinction between the two.

But hey, if people think that a distinction should not be made between a dominating round and a "knicked round", or that boxing people are incapable of telling the difference anyway, well there's not much I can say about that.

I don't think a distinction should be made. A fight is divided into rounds and the boxer who wins the most rounds wins the fight, unless knockdowns and point deductions come into effect.

To use an extreme example n tennis you could win a match 7-5, 0-6, 7-5, 0-6, 7-5 and win even though you have won far less actual games than your opponent and yet nobody would want to change that system.

If fighters could be awarded a greater or lesser number of points for the rounds they win it would pave the way to all kinds of bizarre and terrible scoring.

I can't argue against your first two paragraphs, cause it's just an opinion, as is mine, except that you might well ask why do they score it 10-8 for every flash knockdown. But paragraph three implies there is no reasonable way to differentiate between a dominant round and an "edged" round, or that judges, and that includes you and me, are inherently incapable of dealing with the situation, which I don't accept.