Scoring by rounds and the 'four point' supplementary?

[Willie Pep 229]

The mention of the liver shot in another thread made me go to the Ali - Mildenberger fight.

Didn't get past the opening . . . Coswell gave a quick run down of the rules . . . Scoring by rounds, " [In] case the rounds are even a supplementary one to four point system per round will be in effect. "

Can anyone explain how that worked? I didn't hear any mention of the word 'must'

Are they scoring the rounds with the four point system all a long (guess they would have to be)?

How come when looking at results I have never encountered mention of the four point scoring in the press, has anyone?

P.S. The fight couldn't be lost on a foul. Coswell says they are fighting under the NYSAC rules. The rule goes back to 1931 (I think) in reaction to a plethora of tankers who were stealing fights by claiming fouls. Then the double whammy of the Sharkey-Schmeling fight followed two weeks later of a disqualification of Carnera.

The fighter committing the foul would lose the round, but the fouled fighter had to get up before ten or he loses. It spawned a complaint from the fans, "Foul lightly and lose the round, found hard and win the fight." By these rules you couldn't lose the fight on a foul. Can't believe it was still in effect in 1966.

[QueensburyRules]

The mention of the liver shot in another thread made me go to the Ali - Mildenberger fight.

Didn't get past the opening . . . Coswell gave a quick run down of the rules . . . Scoring by rounds, " [In] case the rounds are even a supplementary one to four point system per round will be in effect. "

Can anyone explain how that worked? I didn't hear any mention of the word 'must'

Are they scoring the rounds with the four point system all a long (guess they would have to be)?

How come when looking at results I have never encountered mention of the four point scoring in the press, has anyone?

P.S. The fight couldn't be lost on a foul. Coswell says they are fighting under the NYSAC rules. The rule goes back to 1931 (I think) in reaction to a plethora of tankers who were stealing fights by claiming fouls. Then the double whammy of the Sharkey-Schmeling fight followed two weeks later of a disqualification of Carnera.

The fighter committing the foul would lose the round, but the fouled fighter had to get up before ten or he loses. It spawned a complaint from the fans, "Foul lightly and lose the round, found hard and win the fight." By these rules you couldn't lose the fight on a foul. Can't believe it was still in effect in 1966.

- - Good luck finding it!

Notably Mercante used as the scoring referee for Ali/Joe 1 that gave Joe a clear undisputed win save hor howls of emasculated Ali supporters. I suspect the supplements were the dominant rd Joe had Ali out on his feet, the 11th maybe, and the 15th with the dramatic, perhaps the greatest Knockdown ever, a stake through the Ali nation heart.

When I got interested in Bill James(baseball) the overview was an orderly compilation of substantial statistics that Baseball has been using to evaluate players. For whatever reason, the higher order mathematical minds gravitated to compiling baseball stats because baseball early on employed professional officiating issuing clear calls when needed and recorded thusly. The fans have a wide open space to see the hits, the outs, the pitches, and Runs and Outs(Innings) for the teams are recorded on a large scoreboard for the whole of the park to see.

Net result is while individual officiating calls may be contested, the final scoring result is clear and the teams will be playing each other multiple times, so it's not like the end of things like boxing may be.

Not sure when boxing started recording scores or provided scoring sheets for Judges, but I don't recall much until the 50s, and most fights then ain't gonna have the scores because they weren't big enough to bother with. And in general, baseball officiating is more consistent on top of being more open, and so boxing lurches weekly in boxing moaning and screaming to the Heavens about the newest controversy that continues to KO fans from the sport. Who wants to watch an incomprehensible sport where anything goes and where officiating oversight is worse than the officiating?

I'd say most of the Money to be made in boxing is in the wagering were good odds can be had and wagered on by all parties.

Unrecord by boxing, as you surely must know!

[markusmod]

The mention of the liver shot in another thread made me go to the Ali - Mildenberger fight.

Didn't get past the opening . . . Coswell gave a quick run down of the rules . . . Scoring by rounds, " [In] case the rounds are even a supplementary one to four point system per round will be in effect. "

Can anyone explain how that worked? I didn't hear any mention of the word 'must'

Are they scoring the rounds with the four point system all a long (guess they would have to be)?

How come when looking at results I have never encountered mention of the four point scoring in the press, has anyone?

P.S. The fight couldn't be lost on a foul. Coswell says they are fighting under the NYSAC rules. The rule goes back to 1931 (I think) in reaction to a plethora of tankers who were stealing fights by claiming fouls. Then the double whammy of the Sharkey-Schmeling fight followed two weeks later of a disqualification of Carnera.

The fighter committing the foul would lose the round, but the fouled fighter had to get up before ten or he loses. It spawned a complaint from the fans, "Foul lightly and lose the round, found hard and win the fight." By these rules you couldn't lose the fight on a foul. Can't believe it was still in effect in 1966.

I tried to do some digging and can't find any documentation on that.

[Willie Pep 229]

I tried to do some digging and can't find any documentation on that.

I watched the entire fight - Cowsell made one more mention of the supplementary scoring in the third round, noting that the reporters had the round even based on their "supplementary scoring."

Could Cowsell have blown it? Could he have meant to say 'five point must' scoring.

I know all through that (1920-1972) period NY scored by rounds and announcers would ofyen say something to the effect: 'knock downs are used as a tie breaker' but no one ever mentioned a scoring system as Cowsell did.

Thanks for looking.

[markusmod]

I watched the entire fight - Cowsell made one more mention of the supplementary scoring in the third round, noting that the reporters had the round even based on their "supplementary scoring."

Could Cowsell have blown it? Could he have meant to say 'five point must' scoring.

I know all through that (1920-1972) period NY scored by rounds and announcers would ofyen say something to the effect: 'knock downs are used as a tie breaker' but no one ever mentioned a scoring system as Cowsell did.

Thanks for looking.

Didn't the WSOB use some 5 judge scoring system in those tournaments?

[QueensburyRules]

- - Boxrec sez fight scored by rounds, yet provide 2 sets of scores that don't match, probably the best representation of the haphazard recordings of boxing that was scored in the day.

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/M...l_Mildenberger

See Manny vs l'l Floydy for a $700mil 3rd millennium fight with 2 bit 19th Century scoring protocol.