Tweet
I constantly read complaints of how the scoring must be messed up when fighters win wide unanimous decisions. I hear situations when people complain that Fighter A won a unanimous decision when a split decision would be more fair. I also here cases where a wide decision is won in a close fight and people suggest that the scores do not reflect the fight itself.
To those people I offer this lesson in scoring fights:
Lesson 1: Fights are scored by three judges. Each judge scores the fight how they see fit. Occasionally one of the judges will not concur with the others on how they see the result. This results in a split decision because one judge disagrees with the other two on the question of who won the fight. Close fights are not necessarily going to be split decisions and split decisions are not necessarily close fights.
Lesson 2: Fights are scored by each judge on a round by round basis. It is possible for a 118 - 110 fight to be closer than a 116-112 fight regardless of the scorecards. Picture a fight in which one boxer is a slow starter and loses the first five rounds due to inactivity but then wins the remaining seven rounds in a dominant fashion to win 115 - 113 on all three cards. Now picture a fight in which all twelve rounds were fiercely contested with many punches landed and thrown but one fighter manages to win ten of the rounds to two and finishes with a score of 118 - 110 on all three cards. Which fight was closer? On paper it appears to be the first fight, but in the ring it was not.
The moral of the story is that split decisions are an anomaly in scoring and are unusual. They should normally be regarded as rematch fodder so a true winner can be decided. The other moral is that fights can be close even if one fighter won every round.
To those people I offer this lesson in scoring fights:
Lesson 1: Fights are scored by three judges. Each judge scores the fight how they see fit. Occasionally one of the judges will not concur with the others on how they see the result. This results in a split decision because one judge disagrees with the other two on the question of who won the fight. Close fights are not necessarily going to be split decisions and split decisions are not necessarily close fights.
Lesson 2: Fights are scored by each judge on a round by round basis. It is possible for a 118 - 110 fight to be closer than a 116-112 fight regardless of the scorecards. Picture a fight in which one boxer is a slow starter and loses the first five rounds due to inactivity but then wins the remaining seven rounds in a dominant fashion to win 115 - 113 on all three cards. Now picture a fight in which all twelve rounds were fiercely contested with many punches landed and thrown but one fighter manages to win ten of the rounds to two and finishes with a score of 118 - 110 on all three cards. Which fight was closer? On paper it appears to be the first fight, but in the ring it was not.
The moral of the story is that split decisions are an anomaly in scoring and are unusual. They should normally be regarded as rematch fodder so a true winner can be decided. The other moral is that fights can be close even if one fighter won every round.