I thought it was a good idea. I remeber there was a high profile fight where they used this scoring technique and the results wound up a bit out of sorts and this resulted in the concept being ditched, i believe, but i think for the most part it is based on good theory.
If 2 of the 3 judges give one fighter a 10-9 round then that fighter wins the round 10-9 on the cumulative card...the one and only card that matters in the final scoring. If one judge scores it 1`0-9 for fighter A and teh otehr 10-9 for fighter B and the third 10-10 then the round is scored 10-10 on teh cumulative card.
i think it should be used. its more fair. this way one judge can ruin it for everyone. I think the big time fights should use this method, to avoid corruption.
I'm sure the egomaniacal judges would be against it...seeing that it would de-personalize the scoring, to a degree.
i think it should be used. its more fair. this way one judge can ruin it for everyone. I think the big time fights should use this method, to avoid corruption.
I figured that if cumulative scoring ahd been used in the barrera juarez fight it would have wound up a draw before the "recalculation" and a Barrerra victory after. Goes to show that in a close fight it still stands up to critique.