It's the Scoring System

Yes, there is corruption in boxing. Yes, there are incompetent judges and referees. This is irrefutable, but why do so many fans in 2023 still overlook the most obvious reason why professional boxing gets it wrong so regularly? Boxing decisions are consistently controversial not (primarily) because of inept judges or crooked power brokers, but simply because of boxing's poorly-implemented rules and its vague and non-sensical judging criteria. Within the U.S. the Unified Rules of the Association of Boxing Commissions website is about the most authoriative source of information about how to conduct and score a professional boxing match, but this resource doesn't offer anything close to a comprehensive guide about how to evaluate a fight. The Unified Rules of Boxing Commissions provides a general framework for scoring but it doesn't provide a detailed breakdown of the scoring system or judging critiera. Fans need to go elsewhere for this information. Anyone who has watched fights for more than a week, however, has heard that boxing scoring uses the 10-Point Must system and that judges evaluate fights on the following four (4) criteria. Effective Aggression Ring Generalship Defense Clean, Hard Punching Most fans accept these as valid scoring criteria, but they are in fact, one of two principle culprits of why judges' and fans' scores vary so wildly in almost every major fight. A newbie fan might immediately wonder how could there be 4 scoring criteria? What other sport does that? Are these criteria all weighted the same? Is there any priority among them? Who's to know? In reality, the only logical scoring criterion is Clean, Hard Punching. The other criteria are superfluous and incidental to Clean, Hard Punching. These extra criteria also create the most confusion and lead to wacky scoring because they allow fans to pick and choose which criterion they want to prioritize in any given fight or in any given round. If they are a Floyd fan, they probably prioritize Defense and Ring Generaliship (whatever that specifically means). In another fight they might justify their scores by citing punch stats which indicate that their guy threw more punches or landed at a higher percentage (as though either matter); thereby proving that he was more 'effectively aggressive.' This is inanity, of course. Nothing matters in this this sport more than clean, hard punching, and weighing any other competing criteria only serves to disregard and diminish the primacy of clean, hard punching. Imagine if similar criteria were applied to any other sports (football, tennis, basketball, etc). You don't win in any competitive sport by giving points for defense, effort or style, so why impose those critieria on the most serious sport of all? This is not dancing or gymnastics. The second (and possibly bigger) culprit for crazy scoring in boxing is the complete disregard for even rounds. A majority of fans and judges completely disregard the fact that the 10-Point Must system acknowledges and allows for scoring of evenly-contested rounds; either because they do not know the rules or they simply regard it as weak and indecisive to score a round even. Fans and judges alike are so loathe to scoring even rounds that they will force a 10-9 score and justify it with the most insgnificant punch or cite some vague assessment of superiority in aggressiveness or ring generalship. Anything at all to not score an even round, even when the round was absolutely as even or uneventful as can be. The end result is wild scorecard variance and endless calls of robbery, just like this weekend. Most fans, regardless of who they were rooting for this weekend, acknowledged that there were at least 5-6 extremely difficult "swing rounds" to score in the Haney-Lomachenko fight. How many of those fans scored 5-6 even rounds (10-10) on their scorecards? Imagine if they did?

Comments (20)

Ok, but I do think this example (and we could come up with a million more) also supports the argument that having multiple competing criteria muddies the water and forces judges to focus on unimportant things. These extra criteria which, again, are incidental to clean, hard punching only serve to give judges an avenue to avoid scoring even rounds when the offense (the important thing) of each fighter was roughly equal. This is not a dance contest. It's not even a break dance street batte. You're defending concepts like "effective aggression" and "ring generalship" because you've been told they matter, not because they actually do. Your thinking leads to giving decisions to fighters who actually got their asses beat. Well, yeah, I’ve been told those things matter the same way three strikes is an out in baseball and a free throw shot equals one point in basketball. Lol I didn’t make up the scoring criteria; they’ve been in place long before I got here. Clean punches landed is the main thing — that is recognized. I only resorted to the lesser criteria because of the specifics of one hypothetical round. Boxing isn’t street fighting; it’s a sport. Sadly, the way it’s scored is much more subjective than other sports.

3y ago

TheOneAboveAll

If landed punches were all it was about, we could just rely on Compubox and do away with judges. But back to the given example: Both fighters landed the same number of punches; no mention was made of the power of said punches. Therefore, in the absence of further information, the other scoring criteria come into play. I give the round to the guy who apparently displayed better defense, and more effective aggression (landed 100% of his punches). I used the word flailing, which may not necessarily be so, but it’s certain the other guy only landed 33% of his punches. That doesn’t sound very effective to me, in comparison. I consider this a fairly clear-cut case. If the second fighter had scored, say 15 punches (50%), I would have to give the round to him, as the number of landed shots takes precedence over other scoring criteria. Ok, but I do think this example (and we could come up with a million more) also supports the argument that having multiple competing criteria muddies the water and forces judges to focus on unimportant things. These extra criteria which, again, are incidental to clean, hard punching only serve to give judges an avenue to avoid scoring even rounds when the offense (the important thing) of each fighter was roughly equal. This is not a dance contest. It's not even a break dance street batte. You're defending concepts like "effective aggression" and "ring generalship" because you've been told they matter, not because they actually do. Your thinking leads to giving decisions to fighters who actually got their asses beat.

3y ago

JakeTheBoxer

more crying and biching from people that made out their scorecard before the fight started. Ya boy lost and yall still crying 2 days later. no robbery. stop the bullchit Still you? You predicted that would be an easy win for Haney. I remember your posts before the fight. Now you act like Haney clearly won or something. Your boy needed a gift to get a decision against older smaller guy, deal with it.

3y ago

Johnny2x2x

more crying and biching from people that made out their scorecard before the fight started. Ya boy lost and yall still crying 2 days later. no robbery. stop the bullchit People lose their freaking ones when their guy loses a close decision. They don’t realize that boxing loves controversy and close decisions that can whip one fan base or the other into a frenzy. Loma lost a fight that had several rounds that could have gone either way. Robbery crying is idiotic and I don’t care if it’s from boxers or fans. Loma fans are worse than Pacquaio fans. Take the loss and move on, Loma still has a lot of big fights he can make.

3y ago

CubanGuyNYC

Ok, but both guys LANDED the same number of punches and you gave it to the guy one who threw less punches. That means you're actually giving primacy to offensive efficiency rather than landed punches. Throwing punches that don't land doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is flailing. As we all understand, fighters often have to throw one or more setup punches to open their opponent up to land clean shots. If landed punches were all it was about, we could just rely on Compubox and do away with judges. But back to the given example: Both fighters landed the same number of punches; no mention was made of the power of said punches. Therefore, in the absence of further information, the other scoring criteria come into play. I give the round to the guy who apparently displayed better defense, and more effective aggression (landed 100% of his punches). I used the word flailing, which may not necessarily be so, but it’s certain the other guy only landed 33% of his punches. That doesn’t sound very effective to me, in comparison. I consider this a fairly clear-cut case. If the second fighter had scored, say 15 punches (50%), I would have to give the round to him, as the number of landed shots takes precedence over other scoring criteria.

3y ago

The_D3vil

Are you telling me this because you want me to believe what you're saying so you can feel better about Haney losing nearly every damn round of that fight? lmao. Bro. You're wasting your time. You know damn will that Haney got his ass kicked. He did not outland Loma. Only in your wildest fantasies did Haney outland Loma. It's all on tape bro, so don't bother trying to gaslight anyone into believing your nonsense. Devin Haney Lost BADLY--Alhumdulillah LOMA--WIN CLEARLY It's that simple. And the whole world knows it. Genius, check the punch statistics. You do know they have those things, now, right?:rolleyes: Haney outlanded Loma in 4 of the first 6 rounds and they tied in the 1st round. Loma punching and hitting mitts or airmost of the time does not equal a landed punch.

3y ago

TheOneAboveAll

This is an excellent example. I’ve made this exact point in the past. To use your scenario, just for kicks, I’d score the round for the more effective fighter — i.e. 10/10; the other guy was just flailing. Way, way too many fans give aggression too much credit. You’ve gotta land punches, dude. Ok, but both guys LANDED the same number of punches and you gave it to the guy one who threw less punches. That means you're actually giving primacy to offensive efficiency rather than landed punches. Throwing punches that don't land doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is flailing. As we all understand, fighters often have to throw one or more setup punches to open their opponent up to land clean shots.

3y ago

SplitSecond

3y ago

TheOneAboveAll

I don't believe I am making your point. In the scenario BOTH fighters landed clean, punches, which is 10. What you say is nonsense criteria, I say is vital to determining who wins, the round/ fight, albeit secondary to clean punching. Lets say the first guy lands 10, under the same scenario, but the second guy lands 8/8. Who win the round? Boxing isn't all about punching. Outside of an outright ko, or tko, there's other factors to consider. Not understanding the rules or misapplication of the judging criteria doesn't mean the system is flawed. Obviously, this cannot be reduced to simple numbers as in the amateur game, but assuming that the quality and impact of the punches you mention in your hypothetical example was the same, the fighter who landed 10 punches should get the nod over the one who landed 8 and threw 8. In your previous example where both fighters landed the same number and quality of punches but one was more efficient, then that's an even round in my opinion. It is illogical to me to even mention the number of punches thrown, or the ratio landed to try to impose some sort of efficiency criteria on the scoring. Taking consideration of one fighter's efficiency over the other muddles things and takes attention away from the only things that should matter: hard, clean punches and damage delivered. Taken to the absurd fighters might just decide to throw and land 5 punches per round if we suddenly started giving extra credit for efficiency (which some fans apparently do). I have never understood why broadcasters emphasize the punches thrown to punches landed ratio at all. I understand the judging criteria very well, and that's why I’m always baffled to hear other people insist that it makes any sense at all. I think a minority of fans, those who think the system makes sense, fail to realize that the current 4 criteria compete with and undermine each other. As I have noted several times now, having four criteria allows fans to pick and choose in every round what criteria they want to emphasize and which ones they want to ignore for that round. To go back to the basketball analogy, it would be like giving points for baskets scored, points for shots blocked, points for hustle and points for ball movement. If they did that we would regularly see teams lose that score more actual baskets than their opponent. It's as absurd for basketball as it is for boxing. I understand that boxing is an art form, but this is fighting so it’s about hitting and hurting your opponent more than anything else. The more the scoring system gets away from that focus, the more screwy it’s going to be.

3y ago

SweetPbfAli

Loma and his fans aside, the criteria for judging boxing is too subjective in nature to produce consistent results amongst a consensus.

3y ago

real_raw

Precisely. Great example. The confusion is created by giving consideration to nonsense criteria and losing sight of the only important one - clean punching. You are making my same point. Not sure if you read the original post. I don't believe I am making your point. In the scenario BOTH fighters landed clean, punches, which is 10. What you say is nonsense criteria, I say is vital to determining who wins, the round/ fight, albeit secondary to clean punching. Lets say the first guy lands 10, under the same scenario, but the second guy lands 8/8. Who win the round? Boxing isn't all about punching. Outside of an outright ko, or tko, there's other factors to consider. Not understanding the rules or misapplication of the judging criteria doesn't mean the system is flawed.

3y ago

CubanGuyNYC

The problem is people not understanding the scoring system. Actually, the system bolsters your argument for clean, hard punching. The problem is you are giving credence to viewpoints of those who dksab. Would you give any serious consideration to anyone saying a dunk doesn't count for the say 2 points as a 10 ft shot? No you wouldn't because dems da rules. No fight is ever won SOELY on ring generalship, defense or effective aggression. They are ancillary to clean, hard punching. Both fighter land 10 punches in a round. One guy had to throw 30 to land 10. The second guy landed 10 out 10. He either slipped or blocked the first fighter's missed 20 punches. Who won that round? This is an excellent example. I’ve made this exact point in the past. To use your scenario, just for kicks, I’d score the round for the more effective fighter — i.e. 10/10; the other guy was just flailing. Way, way too many fans give aggression too much credit. You’ve gotta land punches, dude.

3y ago

CubanGuyNYC

Even rounds are for people who can't make decisions, never score em. Scoring is still better than it was in the 60's and before, where refs could score fights etc....Floyd Patterson vs Jimmy Ellis. That’s not true. Some rounds are so close they basically come down to a coin flip in the scorer’s mind. Happens all the time. They’re what we call “swing rounds”; and they often have a negative impact on a decision and the ensuing reaction. I’m not saying who won between Haney and Lomachenko (I haven’t even seen the fight yet), but it’s clear most thought there were several swing rounds. Those very rounds apparently determined the controversial outcome of this bout.

3y ago

PRINCEKOOL

Damage, needs to also taken into consideration. Knock downs, and damaged sustained. This is why? I have never ever rated Fury vs Wilder I, as a Fury win. Tyson Fury did not beat Deontay Wilder. Wilder backed Tyson Fury up all night, and decked him twice 'Once badly'. If two men where having a fight on the street, and one man decks the other fighter twice 'Once extremely badly, where all of his mates are ready to step in and stop the fight'. The guy in Wilder's position walks away from that street fight, with everyone saying he won the fight. Tyson Fury vs Deontay Wilder I, was ether a draw or a Deontay Wilder win if you want to give the win to one of the fighters 'But overall I personally think a draw was the correct decision'. The reason why the draw was the correct decision, was because? Fury did fight a good fight from long-range for a large percentage of the fight, but he inflicted little damage on Wilder and was decked twice 'Once badly'. That is not how a fighter wins a World title, that has never been the way 'The fight was a draw' etc.

3y ago

TheOneAboveAll

The problem is people not understanding the scoring system. Actually, the system bolsters your argument for clean, hard punching. The problem is you are giving credence to viewpoints of those who dksab. Would you give any serious consideration to anyone saying a dunk doesn't count for the say 2 points as a 10 ft shot? No you wouldn't because dems da rules. No fight is ever won SOELY on ring generalship, defense or effective aggression. They are ancillary to clean, hard punching. Both fighter land 10 punches in a round. One guy had to throw 30 to land 10. The second guy landed 10 out 10. He either slipped or blocked the first fighter's missed 20 punches. Who won that round? Precisely. Great example. The confusion is created by giving consideration to nonsense criteria and losing sight of the only important one - clean punching. You are making my same point. Not sure if you read the original post.

3y ago

Cypocryphy

Because as Roger Mayweather said, "Most people don't know shxt about boxing" Haney outlanded or tied with Lomachenko in 7 of the 12 rounds. That's enough to win. The only OBJECTIVE criteria, the stats say that there's an argument for Devin as the winner. People's SUBJECTIVE criterias say "Lomachenko won 10 rounds" and other shxt like that. Fine, but that's YOUR OPINION, but the numbers say it was a CLOSE FIGHT that could've gone either way Are you telling me this because you want me to believe what you're saying so you can feel better about Haney losing nearly every damn round of that fight? lmao. Bro. You're wasting your time. You know damn will that Haney got his ass kicked. He did not outland Loma. Only in your wildest fantasies did Haney outland Loma. It's all on tape bro, so don't bother trying to gaslight anyone into believing your nonsense. Devin Haney Lost BADLY--Alhumdulillah LOMA--WIN CLEARLY It's that simple. And the whole world knows it.

3y ago

sicko

...you will never get rid of the corruption in boxing...EVER! It was built off of it News Flash Boxing Fans...Corruption can go over the head of the Commission, Promoters and even the fighters head. Very Wealthy Gamblers can easily get to a Judge and slip him money to sway the outcome of the fight to assure that they win their Bets that is where Corruption comes from it is not about Promoters assuring their fighter wins. Nobody is Dumb enough to risk their entire Promote/Business just to assure that 1 Fighter wins it is kinda ridiculous honestly

3y ago

buddyr

I wish they would sometimes give 10-8 scores in dominant rounds of close fights, like Lomas round 11. It could help reflect the fight more clearly I think. you know goddamn well that wans't a 10-8 round hahahaha. At the end of the round, Haney was backing him up. He blew his load haha. wtf

3y ago

ELPacman

Here's another factor. Fighting a guy who lives in Vegas in Vegas. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fraud Jr. set the pattern. As long as you basically fight in your adopted town, they're going to give you the benefit of the doubt on ANY swing rd or close, whatever you want to call it. Haney basically has Vegas in his pocket now. Unfortunately, like Fraud Jr. he's boring as f**k. So we're going to have to see his ugly mug as we did Mayweather for a bit more unless someone knocks him the f**k out.

3y ago

CornerCutman

Because as Roger Mayweather said, "Most people don't know shxt about boxing" Haney outlanded or tied with Lomachenko in 7 of the 12 rounds. That's enough to win. The only OBJECTIVE criteria, the stats say that there's an argument for Devin as the winner. People's SUBJECTIVE criterias say "Lomachenko won 10 rounds" and other shxt like that. Fine, but that's YOUR OPINION, but the numbers say it was a CLOSE FIGHT that could've gone either way You know, we could actually solve this problem. If we created 4 different systems we could randomly select people who were willing to judge. Run a bunch of trials and see how often their opinions match the objective criteria. We could see how often they agreed on the winner, agreed on the loser, or disagreed on either/both. That would tell us the best system and compare how reliable subjective vs objective criteria are and how to balance them. I'll be damned that's an interesting study

3y ago