Ten Point Must System MUST change

how about the judges must be changed first??? Or at least the judges who often come up controversial scorecards????

That would result in a lot of draws There actually are alot of draws. Perhaps it would make some of these guys actually fight instead of posture for most of the round. As it is, as many here like to say, it is "PrizeFIGHTING".

Pretty much this. I think judges should be scoring more 10-10s. I often find that neither fighter does a huge amount in the first, so why feel like you have to pick a winner? That's the thing, though. They don't do it. In 50/50 rounds they basically just give the round to the house fighter.

10 pt must is fine. just have judges score close rounds even. a guy has to clearly win a round. Pretty much this. I think judges should be scoring more 10-10s. I often find that neither fighter does a huge amount in the first, so why feel like you have to pick a winner?

I agree with TS. I hate the current 10 point system. For example Fighter A: wins 6 uneventful rounds by a hair and doesn't have a single memorable moment in all 6 of those rounds Fighter B: completely dominates the other 6 rounds (but doesn't score any KDs) And that's a draw. There's something not right with that.

because the judges scores will be all over the place and one round could make too big a difference one round where a fighter gets stunned and is fighting to stay on his feet would be more cleverly spent taking a knee to recover rather than taking a beating and losing the round 10-7 or worse and if you do win a round big, you dont have to do anything for a good number of rounds, just fight negative and so be it if you lose some "10-9.5's", if a fighter dominates one round and gets a 10-6 rd for example, he can run for 9 rounds before it catches up to him, with the normal system you can catch up to a 10-6 rd loss in 4 rounds without the need to beat the fuk out of your opponent but simply winning the rounds, not everyone is a brawler or a big puncher Well, half points would be more like it is now as opposed to using all 10, but in general if the judges are properly doing it they should be within a half point of each other. If the judges are bad the system doesn't even matter. You should get credit for wrecking on a dude, and you should not be penalized for being edged out as much as losing a round clearly (or getting wrecked). If you lose a round 10-6 you can make up ground faster with 1.5 points a round by working the other guy. A guy should not get back in the fight by just edging rounds unless they get them all. A boxer could put it on a dude to get a 8.5 round you don't have to be a brawler or big puncher just dominant in that round.

The current scoring system does not effectively reflect the winner of a fight. The first feel out rounds where nothing really happens are scored 10/9, the same as a round where one guy lands heavy shots and clearly wins the round without without a knockdown - I know a wipe out round can be 10/8 but that's an extreme. In the past there used to be many even rounds scored for what they called "nothing rounds" nowadays the round is most always given to one fighter 10/9. Why not use all ten points to indicate the reality of a round? There has to be a better way to show who imposed their will on who -- THOUGHTS? i like this idea, there should definitely be more even rounds although DG was being the aggressor in those rounds and Pederson was simply dodging punches do i can see why judges would score for him.

Once again they have no issue doing that now, so how is that really effecting anything? This doesn't change that one iota, but in a properly judged fight it does make a difference. because the judges scores will be all over the place and one round could make too big a difference one round where a fighter gets stunned and is fighting to stay on his feet would be more cleverly spent taking a knee to recover rather than taking a beating and losing the round 10-7 or worse and if you do win a round big, you dont have to do anything for a good number of rounds, just fight negative and so be it if you lose some "10-9.5's", if a fighter dominates one round and gets a 10-6 rd for example, he can run for 9 rounds before it catches up to him, with the normal system you can catch up to a 10-6 rd loss in 4 rounds without the need to beat the fuk out of your opponent but simply winning the rounds, not everyone is a brawler or a big puncher

I don't see the big difference with the half point. One could keep the system as it is and ask the judges to score more 10-8 rounds without a kd , and/or score even rounds. Don't think it'd make a huge difference, if any at all, though. I don't like even rounds, there is something to like between the men every round, so to me scoring an even round is a cop out and if you are scoring a bunch you aren't really making the tough choices required of a judge. Giving someone a slightly lesser options makes it slightly less tough and gives something to pick between. The 10-8 thing just is what it is I don't know how many times I have seen a dude straight wrecked on and the the announce team go maybe that was a 10-8 round then go nah I just scored it 10-9. Plus there is a lot of grey area in between, I think it can make quite a big difference in any one fight which would mean the world to that fighter that they are getting proper credit and their opponent not too much. You are kind of right because it is not something revolutionary the flaws of poor judging don't change, it is more an evolution into something that makes more sense to all involved when done properly.

Once again they have no issue doing that now, so how is that really effecting anything? This doesn't change that one iota, but in a properly judged fight it does make a difference. I don't see the big difference with the half point. One could keep the system as it is and ask the judges to score more 10-8 rounds without a kd , and/or score even rounds. Don't think it'd make a huge difference, if any at all, though.

The current scoring system is absolutely fine providing we have competent judges, as long as the judges do their jobs properly there will rarely be any complaints. It really is not.

The current scoring system is absolutely fine providing we have competent judges, as long as the judges do their jobs properly there will rarely be any complaints.

making it easier to rob fighters, it becomes more opinionated, so imo not a good idea Once again they have no issue doing that now, so how is that really effecting anything? This doesn't change that one iota, but in a properly judged fight it does make a difference.

Yes, they should be equally scored using the 10-9 scoring unless there was a knockdown or point deduction. Like you said, winning is winning, whether you win by an inch or a mile. So if the guy that barely edged the round won that round, then he won that round. It wouldn't changed the outcome of the scorecard decision either way, but yes the number scores will be closer if that's the objective. No ****, I know how to score a fight because that is how it is now. Those are not equal rounds though hence why I said they should be scored different. Almost no one views those rounds as equal because it is not logical to call them the same when they are not. The objective is accuracy in scoring the fight so fans can get it better. If all Garcia's round were 10-9.5 which would be totally legitimate in that fight and all Peterson's were 10-9 and 10-8.5 you don't think that changes the outcome? Which would also be totally legit. 6 rounds at 10-9.5 is 3 points 2 rounds of 10-8.5 are 3 points also.

making it easier to rob fighters, it becomes more opinionated, so imo not a good idea

It is hypothetical, have you not seen rounds were a guy won just slightly and a round where a dude got punked? Then people ***** later on because the dude who was edging rounds got the nod. Last night if you want an example Peterson beat the **** out of Garcia in rounds 11 and 12, while Garcia largely won the early round because of Peterson giving them a way doing **** all. Should those rounds be equally scored? How does that make any sense? It can be tenths if you want but I think .5 serves the purpose just fine. Yes, they should be equally scored using the 10-9 scoring unless there was a knockdown or point deduction. Like you said, winning is winning, whether you win by an inch or a mile. So if the guy that barely edged the round won that round, then he won that round. It wouldn't changed the outcome of the scorecard decision either way, but yes the number scores will be closer if that's the objective.

I'll toss an idea in. In any type of fight scenario sport or otherwise, the end of the fight is always more important than the start. The Championship rounds should be worth double. It would definitely force the action more in the later part of the fight. That way a scenario like Peterson/Garcia where there's an 11th and 12th round beatdown gets rewarded appropriately and a Floyd/Maidana 12th round lap run gets heavily punished.

It would help if you scored those two round so I know what you're talking about. So instead of a draw, a fighter wins by .5 point? If adding .5pt to the scoring system is a step closer to perfection, why not have .1pt margins? A fighter wins/loses by .1 point? 114-113.9? It is hypothetical, have you not seen rounds were a guy won just slightly and a round where a dude got punked? Then people ***** later on because the dude who was edging rounds got the nod. Last night if you want an example Peterson beat the **** out of Garcia in rounds 11 and 12, while Garcia largely won the early round because of Peterson giving them a way doing **** all. Should those rounds be equally scored? How does that make any sense? It can be tenths if you want but I think .5 serves the purpose just fine.

I truly believe changing the system will do little. The will be bad judges no matter what system we use. Better training for judges and referees and making them accountable for their actions is the best way of making the sport more consistent and reliable. Was a time where corrupt judges were abundant in amateur boxing. Rather than cleaning out the bad judges they changed the scoring system which pretty much ruined amateur boxing. It was a white wash and never truly addressed the true problem.

Winning is winning, whether you win by an inch or a mile. Just take two rounds. Round 1 fighter a nicks fighter by just barely Round 2 fighter b put an absolute beating on fighter a but doesn't score a knockdown Is an average person going to think these two rounds are the same or different? It would help if you scored those two round so I know what you're talking about. So instead of a draw, a fighter wins by .5 point? If adding .5pt to the scoring system is a step closer to perfection, why not have .1pt margins? A fighter wins/loses by .1 point? 114-113.9?