Given the most recent scoring controversy should scorecards have more info?

Yea some of those Vegas judges like Dalby Shirley and Jerry Roth have given some questionable verdicts, they're ancient too! I'd be in favour of some weeding out of repeat offenders, the wierd thing on Saturday was that all three judges scored the Johnson fight the same.

I personally only really like effective aggression! Not the type where punches arn't thrown.......as in Tarver vs Woods. Also, I think some thought should be given to individual round weighting. Clearly in the Dawson vs Johnson fight, the rounds that Johnson won were far clearer than the rounds that Dawson pinched. But possibly not by enough to warrant a 10-8 under the current system. One idea might be that a dominant round with a knockdown gets 10-7, a very dominant round 10-8 and lastly a close round, but with an advantage one way perhaps 10-9. Just thoughts, I dont want a hanging for this one! This actually seems like a real good idea, but it would still boil down to personal opinions of the same judges boxing has now, which are not proving to be too good. But I personaly would like the scoring like you described above. In a fight where fighter X did just enough to beat fighter O for six rounds, then fighter O steped up and completely kicked fighter X's ass but with no KO for the other six rounds should not be a draw.

what they should do is get the judges who give exceptionaly wide margins in a close fight (and there is at least one in almost every fight) and have a sit down with them. Watch the fight on video and have them explain round for round how and why they scored it like they did. If his reasons are not profesional enough then get rid of the judge, start weeding some of these fuckers out, they're tarnishing the sport.

I personally only really like effective aggression! Not the type where punches arn't thrown.......as in Tarver vs Woods. Also, I think some thought should be given to individual round weighting. Clearly in the Dawson vs Johnson fight, the rounds that Johnson won were far clearer than the rounds that Dawson pinched. But possibly not by enough to warrant a 10-8 under the current system. One idea might be that a dominant round with a knockdown gets 10-7, a very dominant round 10-8 and lastly a close round, but with an advantage one way perhaps 10-9. Just thoughts, I dont want a hanging for this one! All thoughts are welcome, that's why I floated the thread, if there was more certainty boxers might travel more with more confidence in the system, high hopes I know as the ghost of Ottke still leaves a terrible stench on the sport.

I personally only really like effective aggression! Not the type where punches arn't thrown.......as in Tarver vs Woods. Also, I think some thought should be given to individual round weighting. Clearly in the Dawson vs Johnson fight, the rounds that Johnson won were far clearer than the rounds that Dawson pinched. But possibly not by enough to warrant a 10-8 under the current system. One idea might be that a dominant round with a knockdown gets 10-7, a very dominant round 10-8 and lastly a close round, but with an advantage one way perhaps 10-9. Just thoughts, I dont want a hanging for this one!

I think the scoring system should remain the way it is, adding more things to the system will only make the officials make more mistakes. Boxing needs to find more competent officials, not change the system IMO.

Not sure it's such a good idea, but you're right, something HAS to be done. By the way, a worse decision, on the same show, was Dawson beating Johnson. Dawson lost, simple as that. It certainly wasn't a four rounder, however you prefer to score a fight

It is obvious that certain judges score more heavily for fighters going forward and other favour backfoot/ defensive skills. A good example of this was the judge who only gave Tarver victory by four rounds when on my card (and the British ref's) Tarver won 10; the judge in this case must have been awarding points for 'aggression' (although how shuffling forward and getting hit by three times the number of punches you score with in return is aggression, I don't know). If you apply this judging criteria to the Johnson / Dawson fight the ref who was sympathetic to woods would have given Glen the win. My idea would be to have an extra scoring column for close rounds, subdivided so you could award such a round for 1) Aggression; 2) Defense; 3) Workrate. At first you may think, how is that going to help? Well, in my opinion it would have the following benefits: a) It will let you build up an objective profile of how each individual ref thinks; this could lead to a extra level of horse trading in fight negotiations i.e. An attack minded fighter will refuse to fight in front of three refs with a record of giving close rounds to the defensive general. b) It may stop dodgy refs giving a genuine 10:10 round to a favourite if such a decision cannot be defended with evidence of said defense, attack , workrate. c) It would be a good training tool for up and coming referees d) It might lead to certain boxing organisations giving guidance to referees on what is more important in that organisation's eyes e.g. attack may be given priority. e) It would give a fighter a better insight itno what they had to do to win a fight in front of certain refs. f) It would give all us guys something extra to moan about on this forum!!! Anyway, sorry if this is too boring, but it would be good to see why a ref gave a round a certain way Not sure it's such a good idea, but you're right, something HAS to be done. By the way, a worse decision, on the same show, was Dawson beating Johnson. Dawson lost, simple as that.

The main problem is that judges probably have a personal bias on what they like to see in the ring, if a fight is an out and out robbery then the boxing commission should ask for an explaination of each round of the fight and also be able to overturn obvious dubious decisions or enforce a rematch.