Changing The Score on Television Fights

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

By Lyle Fitzsimmons - I know it’s only Tuesday, but it’s already been a long week.

And with the combination of a sore back from moving boxes to my family’s new residence in sunny Marion County and the corresponding wait until later today to have Internet access at the new abode, I’ve got a twinge of irritation built up as I hack away here.

Whenever I’m irritated – as anyone subject to my presence for any length of time can attest – I’m sort of a pain in the neck, with the tendency to get short and incendiary with comments and oft-times lobbing hand grenades where simple pebbles would do.

Of course, while it doesn’t exactly earn me high marks in interpersonal relations, it doesn’t always hurt in this line of work – where the hand grenade approach is usually just as warranted. [details]

[Google_It_Bitch]

By Lyle Fitzsimmons - I know it’s only Tuesday, but it’s already been a long week.

And with the combination of a sore back from moving boxes to my family’s new residence in sunny Marion County and the corresponding wait until later today to have Internet access at the new abode, I’ve got a twinge of irritation built up as I hack away here.

Whenever I’m irritated – as anyone subject to my presence for any length of time can attest – I’m sort of a pain in the neck, with the tendency to get short and incendiary with comments and oft-times lobbing hand grenades where simple pebbles would do.

Of course, while it doesn’t exactly earn me high marks in interpersonal relations, it doesn’t always hurt in this line of work – where the hand grenade approach is usually just as warranted. [details]

Honestly I dont see a problem with the scoring option Lyle proposes. I see people all the time use this method on forums. It would eliminate a lot of the hassles he has described in his article. Things should be kept simple as the old saying goes "Keep it simple ******".

[BetterCallSaul]

I got bored after he bought up the inacuracies in describing how points are distributed when a KD occurs. Boring.....

[Lacrimosa]

It sounds better... When i became a boxing fan i had many problems with the scoring system... And i think a person, who is not a hardcore fan, wouldn`t guess at once how is the scoring held...

And this one sounds rather simple and handy...

[JED46]

Sounds good to me

A 3-point system is a great idea. Simple math, and it rewards fighters for winning rounds in a decisive or dominant fashion.

0-0 for an even round
1-0 for a close round
2-0 for a decisive round
3-0 for a dominant round

And I don't think knockdowns have to be scored directly. Not every knockdown is exactly the same, so why score them the same? For example, if I were a judge under this system, I wouldn't have given Hopkins an extra point for knocking down Tarver; his hand barely touched the ground! Each judge should be able to determine how significant a knockdown is. If a judge does consider a KD to be significant, he can include it in his score. So a relatively even round, with a significant KD, can become 1-0, or a close round could become decisive, earning the winner two points instead of one. And a couple of nasty KD's can earn the fighter a 3-0 round. But with this system, the judge is evaluating the entire round, not just the KD's.

Of course, the ref should still give a count and assess the condition the fighter is in. It should be a medical issue, not a scoring issue.

[Scott9945]

A 3-point system is a great idea. Simple math, and it rewards fighters for winning rounds in a decisive or dominant fashion.

0-0 for an even round
1-0 for a close round
2-0 for a decisive round
3-0 for a dominant round

And I don't think knockdowns have to be scored directly. Not every knockdown is exactly the same, so why score them the same? For example, if I were a judge under this system, I wouldn't have given Hopkins an extra point for knocking down Tarver; his hand barely touched the ground! Each judge should be able to determine how significant a knockdown is. If a judge does consider a KD to be significant, he can include it in his score. So a relatively even round, with a significant KD, can become 1-0, or a close round could become decisive, earning the winner two points instead of one. And a couple of nasty KD's can earn the fighter a 3-0 round. But with this system, the judge is evaluating the entire round, not just the KD's.

Of course, the ref should still give a count and assess the condition the fighter is in. It should be a medical issue, not a scoring issue.

I agree with most of this. Boxing needs to get past guys like Lederman who arbitrarily score knockdowns as two point rounds.

[cminniti]

i do not believe that this proposed method of scoring would benefit the boxing community whatsoever. I agree, nevertheless, that the "10 pt must system" can be improved. However, reverting back to a "1 point must system" does not move us towards any improvements. All that really comes of changing to a "1 point must system" is making the math easier for the judges which is absolutely ridiculous. if the judges can't perform basic arithmetic then they should not be judges rather dumbing down the tools for them to use.

The "10 point must system" is based on the following 4 scoring criteria: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship, and defense. If I were to remedy the current scoring system, I would start by amending the criteria first. The only criteria I have an issue with is "effective aggressiveness". I would change it to read: "strategic prowess". This change would reflect that one does not need to be aggressive necessarily in order to be effective.

I would then move to have each criteria scored from 0-2 points per round with the subjective winner receiving 2 points (must) and the loser of the round at least 1 point representing that he did something to make it through the round. under this method, a fighter could more easily earn more than a single point per round thus the scorecards could more accurately depict the events of the match. fouls and knockdowns would be assessed on the total score for the round.

If fighter A wins a round and performs spectacularly by exhibiting defense, clean punching, strategic prowess, and ring generalship he could get the full 10 points (2 points per criteria, 1 point for surviving the round, and 1 point for winning the round). to wit, if fighter B performs spectacularly but does not do enough to win, then he could receive all 9 points available to him (2 points per criteria and 1 point for surviving the round). under this method of scoring, fighter B could easily come back in any one round if fighter A takes a round off and Fighter B continues his spectacular performance. for example, consider that fighter A, during his round off, only gets 1 point per criteria and 1 point for surviving the round then he would only get 5 points for his lethargy. in that same round, fighter B, performing marvelously, gets 2 points per criteria, 1 point for surviving the round, and 1 point for winning the round for a total of 10. in this one round there would be a 5 point swing.

undoubtedly, this system would be abused just as easily as the current "10 point must system" is. However, matches like Bute v. Andrade and cambell v. funeka would have had scores that reflected the events that took place. By this I mean to explain that if someone only wins a few rounds but in those rounds outperforms his opponent dramtically, that should be taken into account.

[boxing2106]

wen i became a hardcore fan thats when i got used to the scoring but ive never really liked it and always wonders why they never use a 1 point base system. good article.

[JED46]

i do not believe that this proposed method of scoring would benefit the boxing community whatsoever.

Frankly, neither would your method.

I would then move to have each criteria scored from 0-2 points per round with the subjective winner receiving 2 points (must) and the loser of the round at least 1 point representing that he did something to make it through the round. under this method, a fighter could more easily earn more than a single point per round thus the scorecards could more accurately depict the events of the match. fouls and knockdowns would be assessed on the total score for the round.

If fighter A wins a round and performs spectacularly by exhibiting defense, clean punching, strategic prowess, and ring generalship he could get the full 10 points (2 points per criteria, 1 point for surviving the round, and 1 point for winning the round). to wit, if fighter B performs spectacularly but does not do enough to win, then he could receive all 9 points available to him (2 points per criteria and 1 point for surviving the round). under this method of scoring, fighter B could easily come back in any one round if fighter A takes a round off and Fighter B continues his spectacular performance. for example, consider that fighter A, during his round off, only gets 1 point per criteria and 1 point for surviving the round then he would only get 5 points for his lethargy. in that same round, fighter B, performing marvelously, gets 2 points per criteria, 1 point for surviving the round, and 1 point for winning the round for a total of 10. in this one round there would be a 5 point swing.

Wow, that is incredibly complicated. Distinct numerical values for defense, clean punching, strategic prowess, ring generalship, and winning/losing the round. That's ten numbers to add up each and every round. If we have a lot of scoring errors now, just imagine judges having to tally five separate scores for each fighter in each round! Oh boy, what a mess. I think the 3-point system would be far simpler and more effective. Anybody who has a lot of experience watching and analyzing fights should be able to identify who won the round, and whether it was close, decisive, or dominant, or if it was even. A competent judge should have an intuitive sense of those five criteria without having to literally add them up every round.