Half-Point Scoring

[shadeyfizzle]

If you hurt the guy, you win the round. If you outbox the guy, you win the round. The system awards boxing AND power the way it is now. No reason to change or people with no power could never win fights. Your logic is flawed.

There was a time in boxing history when you could never call people with no power "elite" fighters. All the way from it's bare knuckle beginnings, to the conception of the "marquise of queensbury" rules. Which is what made boxing so appealing to the general public. Because it took balls the size of texas to step in the ring with a 200lb man that you knew was going to bomb you to hell. I admire defensive geniuses like sweet pea and winky who dont necessarily have alot of power...but they got up in there and in their opponent's faces the whole fight. I dont believe however, that guys like mayweather and malignaggi or luevano or guzman should be able to win fights by potshotting and running the whole fight. There needs to be a scoring system which punishes this way of fighting. It's boring, unappealing, and its what's taken boxing from mainstream contention.

[Funky_Monk]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me but why is it scored out of 10 when 0-3 would seem adequate ?
And drawn rounds without knockdowns are 10-10 sorry if this seems ******.

[pfcwintergreen]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me but why is it scored out of 10 when 0-3 would seem adequate ?
And drawn rounds without knockdowns are 10-10 sorry if this seems ******.

When was the 10 point system introduced? They used to let guys just get knocked down over and over and over. That would account for the need for more than 3 points. Especially if a guy gets put on the floor multiple times and then retaliates with a low blow.

And perhaps using 10 points is much easier to calculate for dimwitted judges?

Now...someone who actually KNOWS something give us the real answer.

[Fox McCloud]

If you hurt the guy, you win the round. If you outbox the guy, you win the round. The system awards boxing AND power the way it is now. No reason to change or people with no power could never win fights. Your logic is flawed.

at you saying my logic is flawed when the system I proposed definately still does reward both fighters with a win of a round, no matter whether they outbox or hurt the guy. The thing is, I think there should be more of an incentive to actually do damage. If you hurt the guy, or win it to the point of absolutely no conflict with scoring it for him, you win it 10-9, if you narrowly win it, without setting yourself apart with any real solid landed punches, then you win it 10-9.5.

What's flawed about that Diego?

[Funky_Monk]

When was the 10 point system introduced? They used to let guys just get knocked down over and over and over. That would account for the need for more than 3 points. Especially if a guy gets put on the floor multiple times and then retaliates with a low blow.

And perhaps using 10 points is much easier to calculate for dimwitted judges?

Now...someone who actually KNOWS something give us the real answer.

Yeah, it would be interesting to know.
My main point is surely its harder to win a round than to draw one so seems odd that they use the highest value. it's almost reverse logic.
But liek many others have said if people are corrupt they are corrupt, how its scored wouldt make much difference.

[xcaref]

Half point system is a half-a$$ed suggestion.

How convincingly should you win a round to get a 10-9 as opposed to a 10-9.5? Slick Ass Boxer/PBF running or clowning around for 2:55, complaining to the ref for 5 seconds and throwing one slapping punch to an opponent's zero punch connect will get you what? A 10-9.5 score?

Sorry man I don't get it.

[xcaref]

I dislike half point scoring, they used to use it in the UK and I thought it was pretty bad. The points system now is fine IMO, they just need to find more competent officials.

+ 1 on this.

[Fox McCloud]

Half point system is a half-a$$ed suggestion.

How convincingly should you win a round to get a 10-9 as opposed to a 10-9.5? Slick Ass Boxer/PBF running or clowning around for 2:55, complaining to the ref for 5 seconds and throwing one slapping punch to an opponent's zero punch connect will get you what? A 10-9.5 score?

Sorry man I don't get it.

Okay listen...

If one fighter does better than another, regardless of how well he does, he wins the round.

If one fighter does good enough in the eyes of the judge to get past any possible doubt, then they win it 10-9.

Is this really such a tough concept?

[HappyBoxingFan]

Okay listen...

If one fighter does better than another, regardless of how well he does, he wins the round.

If one fighter does good enough in the eyes of the judge to get past any possible doubt, then they win it 10-9.

Is this really such a tough concept?

Dude, I think I said it yesterday. It is a really good idea.

It is way too sophisticated for people on this site. Don't try to convince others... you will only be fustrated.

I'm smart. I dig it.

[Me La Pelan]

I think we should have a whole new scoring system altogether that rewards the real warriors and punishes the ballerinas that throw a quick flurry then run away for half the round. In the beginning of boxing the only way for a fighter to win was to knock his opponent out, even if it took all day. Today the sport's scoring system has de-evolved to reward lovetap fighters like malignaggi, mayweather and luevano simply by potshotting and running all fight It has to stop. This is why boximg is no longer mainstream. Because the scoring system allows for fighters to put up boringass fights like that and still win.

I agree. I think "boxing an opponent" should not be a strategy to win! I think Boxing (sport) is for warriors, not Marathon runners. To me Boxing is the art of FIGHTING. I see boxing as they did in the past, WHO would eventually get tired,laid out, or quit first if this went all day.