Because looking at the score cards sometimes it looks like they hired Stevie Wonder.
I think the problem is........
The 10 point must system does not take into account for fighters that win rounds big as apose to the opponent who wins the round narrowly, but still wins the round.
Its like Manny Steward always says no matter how little action there is there is normally always a winner and loser to a round.
This is why fans/crowds at Boxing events boo some decisions, because they will see a fighter win 7 rounds unconvincingly/narrowly and the other guy win 5 rounds big, so it looks like one guy got robbed but in reality he lost the fight numerically based on the 10 point must system. Jones vs Tarver is an example or even Johnson vs Dawson. Dawson did not do worse than at least 6 rounds to lose his title, its just Glen won his rounds huge.
To score a fight you MUST score it round by round you cant just not score it and pick a winner at the end because you wont get a true reflection. I think you'd surprise yourself at the outcome you sometimes come out with when you tally the rounds up at the end, fights are generally close or more lop sided than first thought.
I thought the scores for Darchinyan were extremely kind, because i only gave him 4 rounds at the most, and a point for a KD, which was not a real KD.
I still can't see how some judges come out with absurd scores though.
Even when a boxer has clearly won certain rounds.
When you watch a fight you pick a criteria to score within based on what each individual combatant is doing, and if you have chosen the wrong criteria in which to score the fight you will end up with a wildly inaccurate scorecard than somebody who scored the fight on the right critera, that said there are some bent judging decisions out there imo.
Comment