What I Want #1

[Willow The Wisp]

At the end (I had a damn growth spurt during the season; 16 years old) I use to wear thermal underwear cover by a plastic suit covered by sweat pants, cover by a second plastic suit on top only, (no shlt) covered by a hooded sweat shirt with a ski face covering my face. I would turn on the showers to full hot and stand in the middle of the shower room filled with steam and do squats and pust-ups until I exhausted myself.

Strip down, get on the scale and see how close I was to weight, put the gear back on and start again.

I use to cut all my classes and spend all day trying to make weight.

My body finally broke down mid season and I got a viscous infection, missed three straight matches.

My coaches never should have allowed me to do that.

Those were the days.....

[billeau2]

That's some I interesting scoring . . . I thought I was radical . . . I got to think about that a bit . . . Do the corners know the running score?

Havent decided that yet... Im leaning towards "No" because it is tradition and it might make for permutations that are characteristic of gaming the system more than fighting better in the ring... but I am open to debate about it.

[billeau2]

If he chops off both legs

Nah... Doc tole me how to lose a qick thirty pounds of fat... chop my head off.

[markusmod]

Nah... Doc tole me how to lose a qick thirty pounds of fat... chop my head off.

That would certainly do it.

[billeau2]

That would certainly do it.

Maybe even 40 or 50!

[Willie Pep 229]

Havent decided that yet... Im leaning towards "No" because it is tradition and it might make for permutations that are characteristic of gaming the system more than fighting better in the ring... but I am open to debate about it.

Been thinking . . . Six judges scoring intermittently and reviewing highlights doesn't work logistically, you may need nine and use them for 12 round title fights only (because the number of rounds has to be divisible by three to use nine judges.)

In using six judges intermittently, Group A judges round 1 and then has a total of four minutes to be relocated to a video platform (somewhere close by), view highlights, and return to judge round 3. IMO four minutes won't be enough.

The highlight concept also seems to have a possible conformation bias attached to it. Assuming that the judge searches out his own highlights by fast forwarding (FW) he logically is going to FW to events he rembered, (and yes he may then discover he overrated a punch, and that is a good result,) but he would never think to FW to a location were he missed a punch.

The most likely scenario to watching his own chosen highlights is for the judge to double down on his opinion.

Also having a third party choose the highlights doesn't work either because there isn't enough time, and you then surrender the decision, as to what action is important, to one non-judge technician.

Nine judges (three groups) on the other hand turns the laspe time into 8 minutes and opens the door for Group A to rewatch round 1 in its entirety.

What I'm thinking instead (God help the fight game) is to use six judges at ringside live and at the end do like they do on the Olympics, throw out the two extreme scores (this would get rid of ****** scoring like Lady Letterman in Lopez-Loma) and judge the fight by the remaining four scores.

Since four scores might result in too many draws you could then total the four judges scores to denote a winner, as per Olympic scoring. (I personally would prefer using the four judges scores in the traditional sense because I believe most fights are draws, e.g. Lopez-Kambosos)

[QueensburyRules]

Been thinking . . . Six judges scoring intermittently and reviewing highlights doesn't work logistically, you may need nine and use them for 12 round title fights only (because the number of rounds has to be divisible by three to use nine judges.)

In using six judges intermittently, Group A judges round 1 and then has a total of four minutes to be relocated to a video platform (somewhere close by), view highlights, and return to judge round 3. IMO four minutes won't be enough.

The highlight concept also seems to have a possible conformation bias attached to it. Assuming that the judge searches out his own highlights by fast forwarding (FW) he logically is going to FW to events he rembered, (and yes he may then discover he overrated a punch, and that is a good result,) but he would never think to FW to a location were he missed a punch.

The most likely scenario to watching his own chosen highlights is for the judge to double down on his opinion.

Also having a third party choose the highlights doesn't work either because there isn't enough time, and you then surrender the decision, as to what action is important, to one non-judge technician.

Nine judges (three groups) on the other hand turns the laspe time into 8 minutes and opens the door for Group A to rewatch round 1 in its entirety.

What I'm thinking instead (God help the fight game) is to use six judges at ringside live and at the end do like they do on the Olympics, throw out the two extreme scores (this would get rid of ****** scoring like Lady Letterman in Lopez-Loma) and judge the fight by the remaining four scores.

Since four scores might result in too many draws you could then total the four judges scores to denote a winner, as per Olympic scoring. (I personally would prefer using the four judges scores in the traditional sense because I believe most fights are draws, e.g. Lopez-Kambosos)

- - Judging of boxing has already permutated into too many committee meetings, and from my experience, 9 of 10 of all committee meetings that I was cursed with were worse than useless, they were fractional IQs cubed for tortuous presentations.

3 judges are perfect unless they're incompetent or crooked that is the gist of what's wrong with Boxing. The noncombatant participants make their money on wagers with no oversight. The ref often doesn't enforce the limited rules that do exist, or if he does he misinterprets the rules. Scoring rules are needlessly inflating the points into 116-112 Basketball scores that ain't even announced until the commish confiscate and consolidate the judges cards where even then MickeyMouse gradeschool arithmetic/procedural errors occur like in the 3/4 Billion Money/Manny fight.

***** Open scoring every round so fighters know where they stand with the judges. Points awarded one at a time for round accomplishments, not deducted as is the current negative travesty. The people can tabulate much like a football or baseball score. That the common folks no longer understand how boxing has been working has cost boxing a huge market loss to the UFC/MMA. My two boys could care less about boxing, but they understand the UFC/MMA and will watch those fights.

[billeau2]

Been thinking . . . Six judges scoring intermittently and reviewing highlights doesn't work logistically, you may need nine and use them for 12 round title fights only (because the number of rounds has to be divisible by three to use nine judges.)

In using six judges intermittently, Group A judges round 1 and then has a total of four minutes to be relocated to a video platform (somewhere close by), view highlights, and return to judge round 3. IMO four minutes won't be enough.

The highlight concept also seems to have a possible conformation bias attached to it. Assuming that the judge searches out his own highlights by fast forwarding (FW) he logically is going to FW to events he rembered, (and yes he may then discover he overrated a punch, and that is a good result,) but he would never think to FW to a location were he missed a punch.

The most likely scenario to watching his own chosen highlights is for the judge to double down on his opinion.

Also having a third party choose the highlights doesn't work either because there isn't enough time, and you then surrender the decision, as to what action is important, to one non-judge technician.

Nine judges (three groups) on the other hand turns the laspe time into 8 minutes and opens the door for Group A to rewatch round 1 in its entirety.

What I'm thinking instead (God help the fight game) is to use six judges at ringside live and at the end do like they do on the Olympics, throw out the two extreme scores (this would get rid of ****** scoring like Lady Letterman in Lopez-Loma) and judge the fight by the remaining four scores.

Since four scores might result in too many draws you could then total the four judges scores to denote a winner, as per Olympic scoring. (I personally would prefer using the four judges scores in the traditional sense because I believe most fights are draws, e.g. Lopez-Kambosos)

Nine is good... The idea is that each round could be looked at carefully and reviewed and that judges were held to that standard... Peer review of a sort.

Highlights COULD induce a lot of things (confirmation bias included), BUT what they can do is let people look at action and see what actually happened. Whether the shot hit, or not... etc. Just give the judge enough time to watch the round slowly in parts where the fighters interacted... And peer review later to see if the judge's perspective is normative, or not.

There are plenty of ways to give judges enough time to look at spots where there is activity carefully. Heres the thing: A judge can get impressions about the round, and hold them while looking specifically at the points in the round where the fighters interacted. A good deal of a round in boxing involves two guys not interacting. Maybe the judge feels one guy is controlling that aspect of fight... thats fine. Then look at what happens when the fighters do interact, what punches hit, miss, etc.

I have no problem with the six ringside judges... But when you fight many times you display sublety that goes over the judges' heads. Ill give you a perfect example from when I fought in martial arts tournaments. The following is absolutely true lol. In college I was the head of the martial arts club... we were really good as I came from a fighting club... we would sweep all the divisions and most times my guys had to fight each other to get a first, second place winner in the divisions. Funny thing is, despite training all these guys so well, I seldom won a match. It was a running joke lol. Problem was, I was trained to let my opponent hit very close to me... and it looked like they scored a point when in fact I slipped the blow. That was a very real problem... I see parallels in boxing for great defensive guys especially...

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Judging of boxing has already permutated into too many committee meetings, and from my experience, 9 of 10 of all committee meetings that I was cursed with were worse than useless, they were fractional IQs cubed for tortuous presentations.

3 judges are perfect unless they're incompetent or crooked that is the gist of what's wrong with Boxing. The noncombatant participants make their money on wagers with no oversight. The ref often doesn't enforce the limited rules that do exist, or if he does he misinterprets the rules. Scoring rules are needlessly inflating the points into 116-112 Basketball scores that ain't even announced until the commish confiscate and consolidate the judges cards where even then MickeyMouse gradeschool arithmetic/procedural errors occur like in the 3/4 Billion Money/Manny fight.

***** Open scoring every round so fighters know where they stand with the judges. Points awarded one at a time for round accomplishments, not deducted as is the current negative travesty. The people can tabulate much like a football or baseball score. That the common folks no longer understand how boxing has been working has cost boxing a huge market loss to the UFC/MMA. My two boys could care less about boxing, but they understand the UFC/MMA and will watch those fights.

I agree with most everything except the open scoring . . . While it may force more honest scoring I see two problems . . .

Crowds could influence a judge whoes back is to a hostile audience. . .

We don't want a NFL Quarterback 'taking a knee' in the fail round.

[markusmod]

Maybe even 40 or 50!

Anorak would lose that much by cutting off those fat butt cheeks