Scoring System

[savorduhflavor]

Does anyone else sometimes feel that 10-8 rounds should be a little more common?

I go back and forth because, on one hand that's just boxing. Win each round, no matter how you do it. Throw flurries at the end to try and steal the round, it's just how boxing has always been.

But then again, is it always that fair for maybe one guy to barely win more rounds while the other one absolutely dominated a few but didn't get the knockdown necessary to get the 10-8 round?

Take Hagler/Leonard for example. The 5th round was about as one sided as you can get, that one round did more damage and was more one sided than any of the rounds Leonard won. Sometimes there should be something said in the scoring system for dominant rounds. Does it really make sense if one guy wins 7 very close rounds and doesn't inflict too much punishment and beats the opponent who dominated 5 rounds?

I think for the most part I'm ok with the way things are, but sometimes I get a little frustrated and thought it could bring some decent discussion.

[ИATAS]

Well I think that's when the .5 scoring can come in handy.

So for example, the way it works now is it doesn't matter if a round is extremely close or if it's a lopsided round, the scoring is 10-9 regardless.

Scoring a 10-9.5 round for the really close rounds and then a 10-9 for when there is a clear winner could work much better (I know they do this sometimes, but I think it should become common practice). And then a 10-8 for a complete beat-down, or a knockdown of course.

[savorduhflavor]

Well I think that's when the .5 scoring can come in handy.

So for example, the way it works now is it doesn't matter if a round is extremely close or if it's a lopsided round, the scoring is 10-9 regardless.

Scoring a 10-9.5 round for the really close rounds and then a 10-9 for when there is a clear winner could work much better (I know they do this sometimes, but I think it should become common practice). And then a 10-8 for a complete beat-down, or a knockdown of course.

Interesting. I think that could work great, but it seems like just too drastic of a change to actually happen though. Its a real shame too.

[rizkybizness]

Well I think that's when the .5 scoring can come in handy.

So for example, the way it works now is it doesn't matter if a round is extremely close or if it's a lopsided round, the scoring is 10-9 regardless.

Scoring a 10-9.5 round for the really close rounds and then a 10-9 for when there is a clear winner could work much better (I know they do this sometimes, but I think it should become common practice). And then a 10-8 for a complete beat-down, or a knockdown of course.

Or a Tye-0 round.

[warp1432]

No and No (to the half point system). Boxing's scoring is already subjective as it is, they don't need half points to make it even more. Also corrupted judges could make the fighter catch up with half points.

10-8's shouldn't be scored without a major ass kicking or a knockdown.

[ИATAS]

Also corrupted judges could make the fighter catch up with half points.

Very good point. Can never underestimate the corruption of judges as well as the ******ity of the judges.

In theory it works great, but all that is out the window when the above two points are factored in!

I think more importantly there needs to be an overhaul of the judges - more training on HOW TO SCORE a round, so there is some common basic knowledge between judges so that there is more consistency. And there should be more judges too I think, like 8-10.