Would an improved scoring system reduce "dodgy decisions"?

[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.

[CGM]

[QUOTE=Bilbo;746446][quote=CGM;746436]

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).

Thank you for illuminating for me the true nature of boxing. By golly no, it never occurred to me that a knockout is the true goal, and all other issues are secondary, and therefore there is no point in differentiating between whatever. You logic is astounding.

You chess analogy is absurd. it's apples and oranges. Ultimately, it is within the control of eitehr player to force the game to one and only one decisive conclusion. It's obviously not the same with boxing.

Anyways, you continue to argue against my suggestion by begging the question. Maybe you impress yourself and a few others with that kind of argument, but I really don't have the patience.

[Kev]

[quote=CGM;746457][quote=Bilbo;746446]

Thank you for illuminating for me the true nature of boxing. By golly no, it never occurred to me that a knockout is the true goal, and all other issues are secondary, and therefore there is no point in differentiating between whatever. You logic is astounding.

You chess analogy is absurd. it's apples and oranges. Ultimately, it is within the control of eitehr player to force the game to one and only one decisive conclusion. It's obviously not the same with boxing.

Anyways, you continue to argue against my suggestion by begging the question. Maybe you impress yourself and a few others with that kind of argument, but I really don't have the patience.

You always get so tetchy CGM simply unable to have a disagreement with anyone about anything.

The boxing rules as they stand are fine. If a boxer outboxes his opponent he wins the round 10-9, if he knocks him down he scores 10-8 that's the way it SHOULD be.

This simple scoring method has been workable for 100 years and is a lot less subjective than having judges deciding how much one fighter beat another in each round.

If judges can disagree on any given round with 3 simple options, Fighter A, Fighter B, or even how much more are they likely to disagree when given the choice of Figher A wins by 1 point, Fighter A wins by 2 points, Fighter B wins by 1 point, Fighter B wins by 2 point, the round is even.

Multiply that by 12 rounds you are giving judges another potential 24 differences of opinion over the course of a fight. How you think this would lead to more fair, balanced and less dodgy decisions is completely beyond me.

Please explain how you think the judges are competent enough to score correctly in your new 5 selection choices per round scoring method but are incompetent to score correctly in the current 3 selection choices per round scoring method?

And if you try and argue that the judges do an ok job now then why change a system that is clearly working?

Can you give a single fight example in history where a blatent robbery occurred but that the fight would have been correctly scored in favour of the true winner if only the judges has 5 selection choices per round instead of 3?

You accuse me of begging the question and faulty logic but the burden of proof is not on me. This has been the system to score fights for the best part of 100 years, it's part of the very traditions of boxing. If you want to change it and usher in a revolutionary new scoring system then surely you need to have outstanding and damning evidence against the workability of the current system. If that is the case, then lets hear it.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

[QUOTE=Bilbo;746446][quote=CGM;746436]

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.

As much as I agree with you within the context of scoring bouts, I have to point out that you are inadvertantly making a case for that of punchers being favoured in scoring, given the opinion that the main goal of a fight is to knock your opponent out.

Has Boxing not moved away from this notion?

[Spicoli]

I believe that the problem has always been the the execution/interpretation of the system and how it is left to be massaged as opposed to the system it self.Their simply is no follow through and consequences handed down from state commissions and Promoters etc for clearly faulty results that are in error.......more often than not one gets the impression that the influence sways to a promotions 'house' fighter,almost an unspoken fact that has gone on for ages.They need to review these judges and should a card be handed in that is clearly off the mark from the majority...have them analyze the fight and break it down as to how that conclusion was arrived at.Review and cause and effect is key.Look for patterns.These are not just a open and close affair...these shite decisions effect a guys career and finances in each and every case.

Not sure about scoring a round in a lesser degree for being close or wide.They need to focus concern on just getting the round to the deserved fighter in the first place.Sort of expecting them to before they have learned to walk properly.They should also review the use of referees as judges on the same card.Sort of blurs the lines in a very short time frame.

[Kev]

[quote=Jimboogie;746788][quote=Bilbo;746446]

As much as I agree with you within the context of scoring bouts, I have to point out that you are inadvertantly making a case for that of punchers being favoured in scoring, given the opinion that the main goal of a fight is to knock your opponent out.

Has Boxing not moved away from this notion?

Not at all, I actually think a new scoring method with judges able to award more points for dominating the round would favour punchers more as obviously light punching, elusive types like Calderon, Spinks, Malignaggi, Mayweather at the higher weights etc are less likely to have massively one sided rounds than huge punching or fast relentless tpye fighters like Pacquaio, Pavlik etc.

The current system is completely fine imo. If you outbox your opponent over the course of a round you will win the round 10-9. If you knock them down you will win the round 10-8 (which is fair as a knockdown is a tangible material gain).

But if you dominate a round, throwing and landing far more than your opponent but he doesn't go down or take a knee then you still only win the round 10-9. That's the way it should be, that's the strategy that fighters work to, sometimes taking a round off to catch their breath etc.

To use the Cotto Clottey fight again, when Cotto had Clottey on the ropes for an entire round he was totally dominating the round, but the correct score for the round is still only 10-9 Cotto because he didn't floor Clottey in that round. That's the way it should be.

Each round is a seperate mini event and the idea of being able to score more winning your rounds than you opponent does winning his (without kncokdowns and point deductions) would just make for frankly ridiculous scoring results.

You could easily imagine a fight like Marquez Pacquaio 2 being scored completely differently by each of the three judges under such rules, one giving Pacquaio double points for most of the rounds he won, Marquez only getting single points for his rounds or vice versa. A close fight could end up reading as a total domination and UD for one guy thanks to the new complications of the system.