Boxing scoring leads to confusion and room for corruption

I also suggest, once boxing gives it's judges better viewing angles, they employ 3 more judges. 3 judges keep score of one fighter while the other 3 on the opponent. Most sports have a plethora of refs and umps. Boxing has the least. This way, judges wouldn't be overwhelmed keeping track of the score. We at home can easily (I know I can) score a fight in this manner without much effort (again, thanks to superior viewing and replays). Edit - Also, with a standard scoring system, ROBBERIES can be reversed. Remove the subjectivity !!!!!

Kev, you do know 10-9 and 10-8 is the same as 1-0 and 2-0? I do like this idea though because I think scoring a fight 10 or 11-0 is easier for a lay person than 100-90 or 100-89. No it isn’t. Boxing’s scoring system is obviously flawed. How come there are no tied rounds? How come every round needs a winner, even if there is no universally agreed upon winner by spectators (or they pick their favorite fighter)? Why does each fighter start with 10 points, and are subtracted only 1 point if they lose, and 1 additional point if they get KD’ed? Boxing fans have been forced to try to make sense out of a non-sensical scoring system.

I have no issues with the system. Although am in agreement that 10-10 rds should be scored more often, don’t bother trying to give toss up rds to one guy. That’s a big one, I don’t want to hear after a fight “oh boy, it was so hard to score, most of the rds could;ve gone either way, but I gave them all to this guy, yay!” I think the room for corruption also comes from the scoring criteria, giving guys points for “ring generalship” which each person seems to have their own damn interpretation of or “defense” is pointless. It should be fairly simple, just weigh who landed most vs who did more damage rd-by-rd(decent way to not let an inactive guy steal a rd with one solid punch after getting peppered for 90% of the rd). Taylor was outlanded and took more damage, pretty clear loss.

There's a 10 point must system but they only really use 3-4 of those points. 10-9 should be a close round only. Use more variance, a clear one sided round should be 10-8, a KD in close round 10-8, KD in clear round 10-7, etc. Granted, this gives more leeway for corrupt and incompetent judges to do funny business so maybe the only solution is to make judges explain their cards and have separate review boards. No real easy solution.

I actually think the biggest problem is that judges are advised to try and not score 10-10 rounds, and with this, any close 10-10 type round, gets scored 10-9 in favour of the home/fave/bigger name fighter every time. If 10-10 rounds were a common thing, then I'm certain Catterall would have beaten Taylor on the cards, as it's in the judges minds, anything close at all, just go Taylor/the bigger name. Scoring rounds 1-0. as opposed to 10-9, in reality, makes no difference whatsoever. Nash out.

It's a good point but a judge can score a 10-8 round if a fighter stays on his feet but gets completely annihilated. I thought round 5 of Brook-Khan should've been a 10-8 since Khan didn't throw/land and just got beaten around the ring for 3 mins. This hasn't got much to do with op's point, just pointing out that judges don't HAVE to give 9 points to someone who took a complete beating but stayed on his feet.

You give a guy 9 points for losing a round, 8 points in a round he gets knocked down, that’s a recipe for disaster and lots of room for corruption. Even getting battered from pillar to post in a round? You still can get 9 points. Change scoring to 1 point for the winner, 0 for the loser. 1 additional point additional KD’s. The loser of the round scores a KD? k, give him a point for that. If I (as I am right now, not a pro etc) step in the ring vs GGG, survive round 1 with no KD’s because I ran for my life, I get 9 points. What kind of BS is that? Boxing orgs need to push for a more simple scoring system. This is r/tarded. The 10pt must system really can be a curse. Now we all know they are not gonna simplify anything for the sake of the paying public!

You give a guy 9 points for losing a round, 8 points in a round he gets knocked down, that’s a recipe for disaster and lots of room for corruption. Even getting battered from pillar to post in a round? You still can get 9 points. Change scoring to 1 point for the winner, 0 for the loser. 1 additional point additional KD’s. The loser of the round scores a KD? k, give him a point for that. If I (as I am right now, not a pro etc) step in the ring vs GGG, survive round 1 with no KD’s because I ran for my life, I get 9 points. What kind of BS is that? Boxing orgs need to push for a more simple scoring system. This is r/tarded. Kev, you do know 10-9 and 10-8 is the same as 1-0 and 2-0? I do like this idea though because I think scoring a fight 10 or 11-0 is easier for a lay person than 100-90 or 100-89.

Dump 10 pt must Boxing points should be - Jab is 1 pt, like a free throw Hooks to the head are 2 pts Body blows 3 pts, encourage headhunters to up their game. Knockdowns 4 pts like a grand slam in baseball Defense is not a scoring part of any sport unless it results in a turnover of some kind. That possibility does not exist in boxing. The expert level of the score is not registered in any sports scoring criteria. Why is it supposed to factor in boxing ? Most of all, give the judges optimum vantage points other sports give their scoring personnel. Edit Example - Jab, jab, hook to head, hook to body....knockdown = 11pts

It’s opinionated. Basically a boxer can dominate a round, and a judge, if its his opinion (or corruption), can give it to the guy who seemingly lost. Boxing fights are like, imagine an NFL team outpoints another team 21 to 7. But the decision on who won has to go to 3 judges, and the 3 judges give the decision to the team that scored 7 points. Just cause. Maybe home-field advantage. That’s how boxing is. The winner isn’t the winner unless the judges say so. In boxing you can win AND lose at the same time. I don’t know how their hasn’t been a complete overhaul of this extremely controversial scoring system. Every time after a fight goes the distance, fans and announcers discuss the high possibility of judges getting it wrong. Because it happens so frequently. It’s sad as hell. A guy works his ass off in the gym, seemingly wins, but gets awarded a Loss. After a sporting event is over, there is a definitive winner. There’s no discussion on “who really won”. There’s a definite winner. Not in boxing/combat sports. Think of all the big brained professionals behind the scene who still don't get it (or maybe they do and just don't want to improve things). Boxing's system has been a joke forever. The people who need the best view (the judges) have the worst seats :lol1 Boxers won't know to the end what the scores are Imagine any other sport doing that :lol1: The flaws are part of the charm :dunno:

The scorecards should be shown after each round.

The trouble is with the nature of boxing, its a fight with rules that lasts 36 minutes, the only real way is a scoring system that correctly counts punches landed per round, if as you say 1 point for the winner is really just a perspective call, might as well throw the scores away and at the end say he won he lost. I think the system we have is ok if it was scored correctly, but its not. its scored from three different perspectives of what was seen that's why it is so open to wrong decisions, its not the scoring formula it's the way it's implemented that's messed up. There should be trial by camera in boxing like there is in all other big sports, when something is scored that's clearly seen on camera as wrong it should be overturned, and fights like Josh Taylors should face a tribunal of judges that re-score the fight and have the power to overrule decisions. Boxing only needs to implement the technology available today into its scoring and that would go a long way towards rightful winners.

Great POV Even worse, a guy can get battered for 2;40 and miraculously score a knockdown. Making it a 9-8 or 9-9 or 10-8 rd in his favor ? Every sport has a chart on what qualifies as a point NBA ADDS a 3pt award for hitting certain shots MLB ADDS pts with HRs and men on base NFL distinguishes TDs from FGs and scores them accordingly Boxing deducts pts instead of awarding them with knockdowns. Scoring in boxing (HA!) is mostly guesswork. If there is a science or a standard system, it has yet to show itself. Still, the judges somehow seem to get it right ''most of the time'' :lol1: It’s opinionated. Basically a boxer can dominate a round, and a judge, if its his opinion (or corruption), can give it to the guy who seemingly lost. Boxing fights are like, imagine an NFL team outpoints another team 21 to 7. But the decision on who won has to go to 3 judges, and the 3 judges give the decision to the team that scored 7 points. Just cause. Maybe home-field advantage. That’s how boxing is. The winner isn’t the winner unless the judges say so. In boxing you can win AND lose at the same time. I don’t know how their hasn’t been a complete overhaul of this extremely controversial scoring system. Every time after a fight goes the distance, fans and announcers discuss the high possibility of judges getting it wrong. Because it happens so frequently. It’s sad as hell. A guy works his ass off in the gym, seemingly wins, but gets awarded a Loss. After a sporting event is over, there is a definitive winner. There’s no discussion on “who really won”. There’s a definite winner. Not in boxing/combat sports.

Great POV Even worse, a guy can get battered for 2;40 and miraculously score a knockdown. Making it a 9-8 or 9-9 or 10-8 rd in his favor ? Every sport has a chart on what qualifies as a point NBA ADDS a 3pt award for hitting certain shots MLB ADDS pts with HRs and men on base NFL distinguishes TDs from FGs and scores them accordingly Boxing deducts pts instead of awarding them with knockdowns. Scoring in boxing (HA!) is mostly guesswork. If there is a science or a standard system, it has yet to show itself. Still, the judges somehow seem to get it right ''most of the time'' :lol1:

To me the issue is that an honest judge needs to more or less split the close rounds in a fight. An average 12 round title fight might have 5-7 'close' rounds. If you try and justify one guy getting all of those, then basically you could have either guy winning a fight when there is only really one winner. Look at Kov-Ward 1. Kov won 5 or so clear rounds. The rest were pretty competitive. Ward won 0 clear rounds really. In that scenario, no one should ever give Ward more than 4 rounds - max would be 5 - absolute max. Even 4 feels charitable for him there. Close but clear rounds do exist - Lara, Floyd, and Billie Joe Saunders are 3 guys who come to mind for me as far as being able to just do enough in a string of rounds to win them close but clear. But most fights have quite a few rounds that are too close to call. You either have to basically split them, or give 10-10 rounds. Only way around it.

Nah I disagree. I like how a fight is determined based off per rounds.

10 points to the winner of the round sounds impressive And 9 points for the loser. A total loser. A guy gets beat up, he gets 9 points. Imagine a team scores a touch down, 6 points. Oh, but wait the defending team gets 5 points. Close game! No robbery here! Or a pitcher gives up a grand slam. Damn! That’s 4 quick runs in. How can the other team come back from that? No biggie, other team was awarded 3 runs just for playing. Let’s change the channel to ESPN, some basketball game is on. Oh he shoots, he scores! 3 pointer, wow. Also, 2 points for the defending team. Close game now! That’s boxing. You lose a round, get slaughtered, get knocked down once, but survive. The person who just beat you up gets 10 points, but no worries, you are still in it, you got 8 points for that whooping you just sustained. It’s r/tarded and allows for the stupid scores everyone complains about. Too much room for bad scores when you can give a loser 9 points and the winner 10 points. That is quite possibly the most r/tarded scoring system of all sports.

I hadn't thought about it but I agree with you.