It's the Scoring System

[Silence]

Canelo 12-0'd GGGeezer in the first fight in terms of clean punching.

[TheOneAboveAll]

There's nothing wrong with the current scoring system. Both fighters go into the fight, indeed each round knowing what the rules are. If anything, fan need to educate themselves on the system and evaluate fights based on the SYSTEM, not on who they thought won.

l just spelled out real problems with the nonsensical judging criteria. Imagine if professional basketball had similar scoring criteria. It wouldn’t necessarily matter how many points each team scored if you also had to evaluate which team was more aggressive, which team played better defense and which team controlled the floor better. Also, if both teams ended up scoring the same amount of points or both teams failed to score even one point, would you just declare a winner based on which team style you preferred? Or would you just call it a tie (which it was)? Can you see now why that’s nutty?

[The D3vil]

Good post. But what happens when 80 percent of the population (or viewers) see the winner clear as day. If this were a toss up fight that we just saw this weekend, wouldn't there be a big split of opinion? Why is it so overwhelmingly Loma? Why are all the professional fighters and trainers saying Loma won? Why are they ALL SAYING IT'S A ROBBERY?!

I've never seen such an outpouring of outrage. I don't even think it was this bad for Canelo vs Golovkin. I think this is viewed as being even more outrageous. Maybe it's due to Canelo vs Golovkin ended in a majority draw. I don't know, but this weekend has left EVERYONE OUTRAGED. So clearly there is some objective criteria that is being considered here to have people overwhelmingly saying the fight was a robbery and Loma won the fight.

Because as Roger Mayweather said, "Most people don't know shxt about boxing"

Haney outlanded or tied with Lomachenko in 7 of the 12 rounds.

That's enough to win.

The only OBJECTIVE criteria, the stats say that there's an argument for Devin as the winner.

People's SUBJECTIVE criterias say "Lomachenko won 10 rounds" and other shxt like that.

Fine, but that's YOUR OPINION, but the numbers say it was a CLOSE FIGHT that could've gone either way

[real raw]

l just spelled out real problems with the nonsensical judging criteria. Imagine if professional basketball had similar scoring criteria. It wouldn’t necessarily matter how many points each team scored if you also had to evaluate which team was more aggressive, which team played better defense and which team controlled the floor better. Also, if both teams ended up scoring the same amount of points or both teams failed to score even one point, would you just declare a winner based on which team style you preferred? Or would you just call it a tie (which it was)? Can you see now why that’s nutty?

Basketball has all kinds of rules which facilitate the flow of the game. A dunk counts the same as a jump shot, despite literally placing the ball in the basket. FREE throw? If one wasn't familiar with the rules, one might not understand what they are watching. There's more skill involved in boxing than two guys just wailing on each other which differentiates it from tough man competitions and bar fights. The SYSTEM is fine. It may not be perfect, some judges may screw up, or out and out falsify their score, but the SYSTEM and criteria are fine.

Here's a thought, do away with judges altogether?

[Jsmooth9876]

Basketball has all kinds of rules which facilitate the flow of the game. A dunk counts the same as a jump shot, despite literally placing the ball in the basket. FREE throw? If one wasn't familiar with the rules, one might not understand what they are watching. There's more skill involved in boxing than two guys just wailing on each other which differentiates it from tough man competitions and bar fights. The SYSTEM is fine. It may not be perfect, some judges may screw up, or out and out falsify their score, but the SYSTEM and criteria are fine.

Here's a thought, do away with judges altogether?

If there were some sort of AI scoring that could be done I'd be all for it

[TheOneAboveAll]

Basketball has all kinds of rules which facilitate the flow of the game. A dunk counts the same as a jump shot, despite literally placing the ball in the basket. FREE throw? If one wasn't familiar with the rules, one might not understand what they are watching. There's more skill involved in boxing than two guys just wailing on each other which differentiates it from tough man competitions and bar fights. The SYSTEM is fine. It may not be perfect, some judges may screw up, or out and out falsify their score, but the SYSTEM and criteria are fine.

Here's a thought, do away with judges altogether?

The system is the root of the problem. Open your eyes.

[LG Motel 22]

I wish they would sometimes give 10-8 scores in dominant rounds of close fights, like Lomas round 11. It could help reflect the fight more clearly I think.

[real raw]

The system is the root of the problem. Open your eyes.

The problem is people not understanding the scoring system. Actually, the system bolsters your argument for clean, hard punching. The problem is you are giving credence to viewpoints of those who dksab. Would you give any serious consideration to anyone saying a dunk doesn't count for the say 2 points as a 10 ft shot? No you wouldn't because dems da rules. No fight is ever won SOELY on ring generalship, defense or effective aggression. They are ancillary to clean, hard punching. Both fighter land 10 punches in a round. One guy had to throw 30 to land 10. The second guy landed 10 out 10. He either slipped or blocked the first fighter's missed 20 punches. Who won that round?

[CornerCutman]

The simplest fix is to let them fight until one says they can't any longer

I think that's a really interesting idea. I love the savagery of the sport, but being human recognize its toll. I'd support something like this if there was a way to protect boxers and their families long term. Like how my father paid union dues and ended up with pensions and life insurances that, frankly, he didn't know **** about. Some lawyer should be obliged to protect them and if they do that....****, I agree, let them fight that out!!

[CornerCutman]

Because as Roger Mayweather said, "Most people don't know shxt about boxing"

Haney outlanded or tied with Lomachenko in 7 of the 12 rounds.

That's enough to win.

The only OBJECTIVE criteria, the stats say that there's an argument for Devin as the winner.

People's SUBJECTIVE criterias say "Lomachenko won 10 rounds" and other shxt like that.

Fine, but that's YOUR OPINION, but the numbers say it was a CLOSE FIGHT that could've gone either way

You know, we could actually solve this problem. If we created 4 different systems we could randomly select people who were willing to judge. Run a bunch of trials and see how often their opinions match the objective criteria. We could see how often they agreed on the winner, agreed on the loser, or disagreed on either/both. That would tell us the best system and compare how reliable subjective vs objective criteria are and how to balance them.

I'll be damned that's an interesting study