Half-Point Scoring

Because it would be easier to explain a 1/2 round, and robberies would be more rampant. Of course if everything was perfect, fights would benefit from half points, no one is debating that, but the main problem is judges scores for the same fight would be all over the place and it would be easier to rob someone. Like I said, if a robbery is going to happen, it's going to happen, no matter what system is in place. Do you think the current system acted as any deterrent in Casamayor-Santa Cruz? The judges who rob fighters will always find a way to spin it somehow. Seriously, how many robberies get overturned anyway? I don't think there would be any difference in the realm of robberies from the half-point system.

In the past two weeks, there have been two fights that would have benefitted from half-point scoring. Dawson won more rounds, Johnson did more damage. Dawson got the decision. Calzaghe won more rounds, Hopkins did more damage. Calzaghe got the decision. I still don't know why everyone is so opposed to a change in scoring that at least allows more options than 10-9 or 9-10... I think both Johnson and Hopkins do have a viable argument that they won the fight, but not under this scoring system. If they fixed the scoring system, both of them probably would have deserved the decision. Because it would be easier to explain a 1/2 round, and robberies would be more rampant. Of course if everything was perfect, fights would benefit from half points, no one is debating that, but the main problem is judges scores for the same fight would be all over the place and it would be easier to rob someone.

In the past two weeks, there have been two fights that would have benefitted from half-point scoring. Dawson won more rounds, Johnson did more damage. Dawson got the decision. Calzaghe won more rounds, Hopkins did more damage. Calzaghe got the decision. I still don't know why everyone is so opposed to a change in scoring that at least allows more options than 10-9 or 9-10... I think both Johnson and Hopkins do have a viable argument that they won the fight, but not under this scoring system. If they fixed the scoring system, both of them probably would have deserved the decision.

There's a lot of things wrong w/ boxing's scoring system and I don't think .5's will fix it. The key is to fix it so judges score on the same system. Yes, rounds are somewhat objective, but there needs to be a more universally recognized way for scoring rounds. There are points to score on... effective aggression, clean effective punching, ring generalship, etc.... but how do you weight all of these? New rules for how you judge the fight are more important than the scores.

HHHmmmmm now that i think about it more. I think its a good idea. :) good one DWiens421.

You really think it is good that a round in which Johnson had Dawson covering up for 30 seconds because he was extremely hurt should be scored the same as a round where Dawson barely got the nod for jabbing a few extra times with Johnson not really even feeling them? Thats the 10pt must system. w/c i think is the ideal at the moment. an even round is discouraged but its not againts the rule. maybe an even shoulnt be discouraged anymore.

10-10 scoring would accomplish the same thing, if neither fighter does enough to win the round in the judges opinion, they can score it 10-10, when a fighter does do enough it's 10-9 10-8 scoring would also accomplish the same thing. Someone can jab their opponent 10 times in a round to their opponent's five. Margarito can also land 40 power shots to Cintron's 12. Neither warrants a 10-10, or a 10-8 round, but I cannot think of a single justification for giving the jabber the same type of credit that Margarito deserves. 10-9.5 compared to 10-9 would accomplish that. Literally all we have now is, 10-10 (100% even), 10-8 (near-death wipeout) or 10-9 (everything else). There is a lot of everything else that should be spread out to a couple of different options.

10-10 scoring would accomplish the same thing, if neither fighter does enough to win the round in the judges opinion, they can score it 10-10, when a fighter does do enough it's 10-9 10-8 scoring would also accomplish the same thing.

I think we should have a whole new scoring system altogether that rewards the real warriors and punishes the ballerinas that throw a quick flurry then run away for half the round. In the beginning of boxing the only way for a fighter to win was to knock his opponent out, even if it took all day. Today the sport's scoring system has de-evolved to reward lovetap fighters like malignaggi, mayweather and luevano simply by potshotting and running all fight It has to stop. This is why boximg is no longer mainstream. Because the scoring system allows for fighters to put up boringass fights like that and still win. I agree. I think "boxing an opponent" should not be a strategy to win! I think Boxing (sport) is for warriors, not Marathon runners. To me Boxing is the art of FIGHTING. I see boxing as they did in the past, WHO would eventually get tired,laid out, or quit first if this went all day.

Okay listen... If one fighter does better than another, regardless of how well he does, he wins the round. If one fighter does good enough in the eyes of the judge to get past any possible doubt, then they win it 10-9. Is this really such a tough concept? Dude, I think I said it yesterday. It is a really good idea. It is way too sophisticated for people on this site. Don't try to convince others... you will only be fustrated. I'm smart. I dig it.

Half point system is a half-a$$ed suggestion. How convincingly should you win a round to get a 10-9 as opposed to a 10-9.5? Slick Ass Boxer/PBF running or clowning around for 2:55, complaining to the ref for 5 seconds and throwing one slapping punch to an opponent's zero punch connect will get you what? A 10-9.5 score? Sorry man I don't get it. Okay listen... If one fighter does better than another, regardless of how well he does, he wins the round. If one fighter does good enough in the eyes of the judge to get past any possible doubt, then they win it 10-9. Is this really such a tough concept?

I dislike half point scoring, they used to use it in the UK and I thought it was pretty bad. The points system now is fine IMO, they just need to find more competent officials. + 1 on this.

Half point system is a half-a$$ed suggestion. How convincingly should you win a round to get a 10-9 as opposed to a 10-9.5? Slick Ass Boxer/PBF running or clowning around for 2:55, complaining to the ref for 5 seconds and throwing one slapping punch to an opponent's zero punch connect will get you what? A 10-9.5 score? Sorry man I don't get it.

When was the 10 point system introduced? They used to let guys just get knocked down over and over and over. That would account for the need for more than 3 points. Especially if a guy gets put on the floor multiple times and then retaliates with a low blow. And perhaps using 10 points is much easier to calculate for dimwitted judges? Now...someone who actually KNOWS something give us the real answer. Yeah, it would be interesting to know. My main point is surely its harder to win a round than to draw one so seems odd that they use the highest value. it's almost reverse logic. But liek many others have said if people are corrupt they are corrupt, how its scored wouldt make much difference.

If you hurt the guy, you win the round. If you outbox the guy, you win the round. The system awards boxing AND power the way it is now. No reason to change or people with no power could never win fights. Your logic is flawed. :lol1: at you saying my logic is flawed when the system I proposed definately still does reward both fighters with a win of a round, no matter whether they outbox or hurt the guy. The thing is, I think there should be more of an incentive to actually do damage. If you hurt the guy, or win it to the point of absolutely no conflict with scoring it for him, you win it 10-9, if you narrowly win it, without setting yourself apart with any real solid landed punches, then you win it 10-9.5. What's flawed about that Diego?

Perhaps someone can enlighten me but why is it scored out of 10 when 0-3 would seem adequate ? And drawn rounds without knockdowns are 10-10 sorry if this seems stupid. When was the 10 point system introduced? They used to let guys just get knocked down over and over and over. That would account for the need for more than 3 points. Especially if a guy gets put on the floor multiple times and then retaliates with a low blow. And perhaps using 10 points is much easier to calculate for dimwitted judges? Now...someone who actually KNOWS something give us the real answer.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me but why is it scored out of 10 when 0-3 would seem adequate ? And drawn rounds without knockdowns are 10-10 sorry if this seems stupid.

If you hurt the guy, you win the round. If you outbox the guy, you win the round. The system awards boxing AND power the way it is now. No reason to change or people with no power could never win fights. Your logic is flawed. There was a time in boxing history when you could never call people with no power "elite" fighters. All the way from it's bare knuckle beginnings, to the conception of the "marquise of queensbury" rules. Which is what made boxing so appealing to the general public. Because it took balls the size of texas to step in the ring with a 200lb man that you knew was going to bomb you to hell. I admire defensive geniuses like sweet pea and winky who dont necessarily have alot of power...but they got up in there and in their opponent's faces the whole fight. I dont believe however, that guys like mayweather and malignaggi or luevano or guzman should be able to win fights by potshotting and running the whole fight. There needs to be a scoring system which punishes this way of fighting. It's boring, unappealing, and its what's taken boxing from mainstream contention.

Even though Chad Dawson might have won more rounds, doesn't it seem like Johnson clearly beat Dawson up more than he got beat up? A fight like this would have likely gone to Johnson had half-point scoring been in session, and since Johnson actually did more damage throughout the fight (and it was actually spread out over quite a few rounds), that probably wouldn't be a bad thing. Other fights that would support half point scoring would be Taylor-Hopkins I and Williams-Margarito. I seriously think this is a decent idea for boxing. Some sort of change for boxing is necessary IMO. If you hurt the guy, you win the round. If you outbox the guy, you win the round. The system awards boxing AND power the way it is now. No reason to change or people with no power could never win fights. Your logic is flawed.

It doesnt sound like a bad idea but it really doesnt matter how the scoring system is set up as long as the judges are incompetent. The reason I believe things need to change is that some rounds should be scored 10-8 before a knockdown but if there is a knockdown later the round is still scored 10-8 meaning that the knockdown actually didnt matter,that doesnt make a lot of sense in my book. and more 10-10 rounds too.