Would an improved scoring system reduce "dodgy decisions"?

[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.