Would an improved scoring system reduce "dodgy decisions"?

[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]

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.

youre right i guess making it a 5 judge decision will only make things worse.

based on your example judges 1 and 5 agrees that clottey won while judges 3 and 4 for cotto judge 2 is for cotto so cotto wins!

what i was hoping for a 5 judge system was to weed out judges who didnt scored the fight accurately. it doesnt matter if one judge scored it with a huge margin like 115-110 as long as another judge scored similar like 115-111

[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.

[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.

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.

Yes but the current system doesn't necessitate that we differentiate between a big round and a close round, other than knockdowns.

Actually even that isn't totally true. In exceptional cases 10-8 rounds are awarded at the judges discretion when a fighter gets totally dominated but doesn't hit the canvas, doesn't happen often, except on Teddy Atlas' cards but the provision is there.

Ultimately each championship fight has 12 rounds and the goal of the fighter (KO's notwithstanding) is to win more of those rounds than his opponent.

If judges can disagree with which fighter won a round (and they always do) then they will disagree whether a round was dominant or not thus the disparity in scoredcards would be even greater and the potential for dodgy decisions would likely be doubled.

Plus what if you're a boxer type with a non punch? Wouldn't this system discriminate against the likes of Calderon, Spinks, Mayweather etc, classy boxers who like to outwork and outbox their opponent over the course of many rounds could have their accumalated advantages wiped out because of a big punch landing by their more powerful opponent.

An example I can think of would be the first Calderon Cazares fight, a masterful performance from Calderon imo where he clearly outpointed his much bigger rival. However Cazares had a couple of big rounds, he was the puncher after all and maybe he would have got double points for those efforts which imo would be unfair.

Also if you are going to score extra for a dominant round where do knockdowns come into play? I mean if an opponent pounds away like Cotto did against Clottey in that round where he had him up against the ropes does he score more for that round than he did the first round where Clottey was probably edging it until being floored by a jab?

Using your argument I guess the first round would be even despite the knockdown as Clottey had the better of it whilst the round where Clottey back up against the ropes would be 10-8 in favour of Cotto.

Already I'm confused and the sitution would likely only get worse.

[CGM]

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.

Yes but the current system doesn't necessitate that we differentiate between a big round and a close round, other than knockdowns.

of course it doesn't, but that begs the question doesn't it? I'm arguing against the current situation.

Actually even that isn't totally true. In exceptional cases 10-8 rounds are awarded at the judges discretion when a fighter gets totally dominated but doesn't hit the canvas, doesn't happen often, except on Teddy Atlas' cards but the provision is there.

it doesn't happen often enough.

Ultimately each championship fight has 12 rounds and the goal of the fighter (KO's notwithstanding) is to win more of those rounds than his opponent.

again, that begs the question.

If judges can disagree with which fighter won a round (and they always do) then they will disagree whether a round was dominant or not thus the disparity in scoredcards would be even greater and the potential for dodgy decisions would likely be doubled.

your logic here is questionable at best. No it does not follow that there would be more dodgy decisions. We have three judges so that these sorts of discrepancies tend to even out, the point being that two out of three judges are likely to get it right.

Plus what if you're a boxer type with a non punch? Wouldn't this system discriminate against the likes of Calderon, Spinks, Mayweather etc, classy boxers who like to outwork and outbox their opponent over the course of many rounds could have their accumalated advantages wiped out because of a big punch landing by their more powerful opponent.

You're plucking things from thin air. All I said was a system which recognizes a dominant round as opposed to a close round. I haven't said exactly how it is to be defined. We haven't defined the system so how can it discriminate against a particular style?

An example I can think of would be the first Calderon Cazares fight, a masterful performance from Calderon imo where he clearly outpointed his much bigger rival. However Cazares had a couple of big rounds, he was the puncher after all and maybe he would have got double points for those efforts which imo would be unfair.

Also if you are going to score extra for a dominant round where do knockdowns come into play? I mean if an opponent pounds away like Cotto did against Clottey in that round where he had him up against the ropes does he score more for that round than he did the first round where Clottey was probably edging it until being floored by a jab?

Using your argument I guess the first round would be even despite the knockdown as Clottey had the better of it whilst the round where Clottey back up against the ropes would be 10-8 in favour of Cotto.

huh? Nothing I've proposed suggests anything of the kind, but now that you mention it, I would question whether or not a knockdown should be an automatic 10-8, depending on what else happened in the round.

Already I'm confused and the sitution would likely only get worse.

Yeah, I can see that you are confused. That ain't my fault. You're just dreaming up ways to complicate the situation.

And Majesty your point about cheating is taken, but I don't think it's that good. Why have a referee and three judges and all kinds of onlookers and cornermen, if none of them can do anything about cheating? Besides, one can cheat under any system, are you suggesting that the current system is designed to minimize cheating.

[Kev]

[quote=CGM;746436][quote=Bilbo;746426]

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.

Can you not see that you're deviating from the true goal of boxing which is to knock your opponent out?

Scoring is only necessary in the event of a non decision i.e no stoppage before the fight ends, its the not the primary goal of the sport. Like in chess checkmate overrules any strategic or positional advantages acumalated during the fight.

for health and safety reasons and to be able to score in the event of a non result fights are split into rounds and a record is kept of who in the judges eyes won a particular round.

Knockdowns score points, as they should, as knocking your opponent to the canvas is the primary goal of boxing, much like a goal in football (soccer).

One team can spend 15 minutes camped in their own half desperately defending with shots hitting the crossbar and coming back off the post, but if the opposition team doesn't score the goal (knockdown) they get no credit for it, because strategic advantages (just like in chess and boxing) are not the primary goal of the sport itself but rather a way to achieve the primary goal.

In my mind if a fighter puts his opponent down he wins the round 10-8 without any discussion as he has achieved the goal of boxing, which is to put your opponent down. If the opponent has outboxed him for most of the round all he is doing (to make another chess analagy) is making use of the his strategic, positional advantages to try ang get a material gain (knockdown) or checkmate (ko).

If he doesn't convert his advantage in a round into either of these he certainly shouldn't be awarded double points in a round for 'dominating' imo.

The current system has a simplicity about it which is necessary I believe, 10-9 for winning the round, 10-8 for scoring a knockdown etc.

It's lasted for a hundred years or so because it works for the most part.