Lopez's work was sloppy

[jmrf4435]

I didn't see one clean punch land, body shots hit elbow..

Loma landed the better work but Teo had activity.

It's a problem in boxing

[RomanReigns2]

I didn't see one clean punch land, body shots hit elbow..

Loma landed the better work but Teo had activity.

It's a problem in boxing

The better, and much younger boxer won the fight. Loma's best win was against a near 40 years Cuban Midget.

[Juanas]

I didn't see one clean punch land, body shots hit elbow..

Loma landed the better work but Teo had activity.

It's a problem in boxing

I kinda agree with your statement, it gets annoying to watch fights like these.

[dannnnn]

I didn't see one clean punch land, body shots hit elbow..

Loma landed the better work but Teo had activity.

It's a problem in boxing

I agree. It's a flaw of the scoring system, it needs to be more flexible. As it stands, every round is automatically a 10-9 unless there's a knockdown (or as good as), which often doesn't allow the final scores to present an accurate picture of the fight as a whole.

For example, round one - where nothing of any significance happened - was worth as much to Lopez score-wise as round nine was to Lomachenko, a round in which he dominated and greatly outlanded Lopez with clean, effective punches. Instead of scoring both rounds equally, why not score one 10-9 and the other, say, 10-5? Why not use the 10 point system to actually differentiate between close and wide rounds?

There have been countless other fights affected by this, with Badou Jack's draw against Adonis Stevenson being one of the more recent notable cases. It's also the reason why you can have a fight be competitive for the whole twelve, but one guy was slightly better every round and so wins by shut out, resulting in a final score which does no justice at all to the competitiveness of the fight.

A change could be implemented, no question, but I feel that:
1) The current scoring system is so entrenched in the minds of all who follow boxing that such a change would seem too radical.
2) It would probably prove more difficult for corrupt judges to sway the outcome of a fight (without appearing even more guilty than they already do). We know promoters wouldn't want that since the last thing they care about is the integrity of the sport.
3) Honest yet incompetent judging is bad enough as it is. It would likely become even worse under a more complex system open to greater subjectivity.

[Nash out]

I must have missed all this great work by Loma. He landed a few decent shots in rounds 8-11, that aside, he was outclassed. He won 2-3 rounds. Take the L. Nash out.

[Rockin']

I agree. It's a flaw of the scoring system, it needs to be more flexible. As it stands, every round is automatically a 10-9 unless there's a knockdown (or as good as), which often doesn't allow the final scores to present an accurate picture of the fight as a whole.

For example, round one - where nothing of any significance happened - was worth as much to Lopez score-wise as round nine was to Lomachenko, a round in which he dominated and greatly outlanded Lopez with clean, effective punches. Instead of scoring both rounds equally, why not score one 10-9 and the other, say, 10-5? Why not use the 10 point system to actually differentiate between close and wide rounds?

There have been countless other fights affected by this, with Badou Jack's draw against Adonis Stevenson being one of the more recent notable cases. It's also the reason why you can have a fight be competitive for the whole twelve, but one guy was slightly better every round and so wins by shut out, resulting in a final score which does no justice at all to the competitiveness of the fight.

A change could be implemented, no question, but I feel that:
1) The current scoring system is so entrenched in the minds of all who follow boxing that such a change would seem too radical.
2) It would probably prove more difficult for corrupt judges to sway the outcome of a fight (without appearing even more guilty than they already do). We know promoters wouldn't want that since the last thing they care about is the integrity of the sport.
3) Honest yet incompetent judging is bad enough as it is. It would likely become even worse under a more complex system open to greater subjectivity.

I agree with most of what you say, but in the end, the scores don't matter at all. All that anyone should be concerned with is who they give the decision to, not by how much.............Rockin'

[ShoulderRoll]

Lopez tore Lomachenko up to the body. And a lot of Lomachenko's punches landed on gloves.

It's been a while since I've seen so much crying and sore-losering from a fanbase. The fact is you can't give away the first 7 rounds and expect to win a fight.

[blowblow]

the one who's active will always be given the points regardless if the punches landed. how can you score someone who's not even trying or let his hands go. the score is per round. sadly loma becomes active a little to late.

[Lomadeaux]

I didn't see one clean punch land, body shots hit elbow..

Loma landed the better work but Teo had activity.

It's a problem in boxing

He didn't land much at all, but Loma let the rounds go and that's why he lost.

The issue is, how the hell did the judges score all those rounds for him?

[Bossony]

Tramp səsvermədən əvvəl qalib gəlmək üçün 2/1 idi. Əgər hamı Hilariyə mostbet yukle mərc edirdisə, o zaman real şanslarından asılı olmayaraq, Trampın şansları daha yaxşı olacaq. Və mənim fikrimcə, ehtimallar köhnə codgerə mərc etmək üçün çox səxavətli idi.