Scoring problems and solutions in boxing

[billeau2]

Determining who wins a close boxing match can be very stressful. Certain developments have been helpful, while others, vis a vis are a hindrance when determining an advantage.

Simply put: describe the systems we use to score fights and what is lacking, what is effective and possible solutions. Here are some of the things I see as problematic.

The championship rounds. If you take a defensive specialist and put him in against an aggressive fighter, less rounds is always an advantage to the defensive minded fighter. Its easier to avoid a puncher than for a puncher to capitolize if the fighters are at the same skill level.... We need 15 round championship fights. This gives the puncher a little more time to set up his weapons. A great example of this is Louis versus Conn. Louis needed the last round to set up his KO. In a 12 rounder it would have been Louis getting outclassed by Conn. 15 rounds means that you offset the tendency for the defensive guy to avoid the aggressive fighter.

Compubox. mere volume of punches thrown is prejudicial imo. Effective punching is a much better guage. And there is a lot of variation in what people see as an effective punch. This means that people are using subjective criteria to indicate what is supposed to be an objective amount of punches thrown. I have said we could have a mean system where 3 button pushers are used for each fighter and the number of punches is an average of what the 3 guys described as punches.

Judges. In fencing there is a system which rewards fencers based on when an attack was initiated....Judges should have a standard system of how much a counter is worth when it counters a punch initiated from the other guy. For example, if a counter catches a guy midpunch and does damage, this takes more skill than a counter initiated after the forward movement of the punch has stopped from the attack. And when do judges score body blows? this should be somewhat standerdized at least.

And intangibles should have a definite value. Effective aggression is a great example. If Pac hits Floyd with two punches in two different rounds, in the first instance if he just comes foward, as opposed to the second instance if he cuts the ring down to get the shot off should the second punch (all other things being equal) be considered a stronger, more point worthy attack?

One of the biggest problems is that we often cannot judge when a punch is slipped. Perhaps a device that tells a judge contact has been made could remedy this problem.

These are a few of my scoring issues! Anyone else?

[mike1010011]

Determining who wins a close boxing match can be very stressful. Certain developments have been helpful, while others, vis a vis are a hindrance when determining an advantage.

Simply put: describe the systems we use to score fights and what is lacking, what is effective and possible solutions. Here are some of the things I see as problematic.

The championship rounds. If you take a defensive specialist and put him in against an aggressive fighter, less rounds is always an advantage to the defensive minded fighter. Its easier to avoid a puncher than for a puncher to capitolize if the fighters are at the same skill level.... We need 15 round championship fights. This gives the puncher a little more time to set up his weapons. A great example of this is Louis versus Conn. Louis needed the last round to set up his KO. In a 12 rounder it would have been Louis getting outclassed by Conn. 15 rounds means that you offset the tendency for the defensive guy to avoid the aggressive fighter.

Compubox. mere volume of punches thrown is prejudicial imo. Effective punching is a much better guage. And there is a lot of variation in what people see as an effective punch. This means that people are using subjective criteria to indicate what is supposed to be an objective amount of punches thrown. I have said we could have a mean system where 3 button pushers are used for each fighter and the number of punches is an average of what the 3 guys described as punches.

Judges. In fencing there is a system which rewards fencers based on when an attack was initiated....Judges should have a standard system of how much a counter is worth when it counters a punch initiated from the other guy. For example, if a counter catches a guy midpunch and does damage, this takes more skill than a counter initiated after the forward movement of the punch has stopped from the attack. And when do judges score body blows? this should be somewhat standerdized at least.

And intangibles should have a definite value. Effective aggression is a great example. If Pac hits Floyd with two punches in two different rounds, in the first instance if he just comes foward, as opposed to the second instance if he cuts the ring down to get the shot off should the second punch (all other things being equal) be considered a stronger, more point worthy attack?

One of the biggest problems is that we often cannot judge when a punch is slipped. Perhaps a device that tells a judge contact has been made could remedy this problem.

These are a few of my scoring issues! Anyone else?

You have some good ideas,but prepare for your ideas to be burned down on this site. Personally I think that the censor in the glove would be useful, not to determine the power behind a punch,but to see if the punch actually landed.

[vorgaphe]

I think the round-by-round approach is a little irritating. In fights such as Garcia-Peterson, there were close rounds given away early by Lamont and then clear rounds won by him later on. If you outclass someone for 5 rounds but lose 7 very tight ones in which neither fighter is particularly effective it seems a little unfair. The only problem with this is there is really no better system and to change from this format would increase the subjectivity of scoring.

[Caught Square]

Under the current system of scoring there will always be controversy amongst scoring simply because there is no concrete way of scoring. Some prioritise effective aggression, some prioritise clean punching etc.

Also it doesn't help that it is far less common to score 10-10 rounds in close fights these days.... 2 rounds can change a 117-111 to a 115-113 which obviously is a lot closer but it could easily be 117-113 with 10-10 rounds. In Canelo-Lara most people consider 117-111 an outrageous scorecard because it indicates dominance which it clearly wasn't but without a doubt that judge would have had AT LEAST 2 rounds where he was unsure but he obviously gave Canelo the benefit of the doubt, making it a wide card.

There is no solution, controversial scoring is part of boxing and always will be.

[Mick6]

What about more 10-8 rounds where you clearly dominate. I know it suppose to be that way but almost never is. Either that and/or more 10-10 rounds where it's too close to call. Seems the only way is to get 10-8 is a knockdown.

How about judges watching on TV monitors vs ringside. Can you see better that way?

[Barcham]

All fights should be last man standing. Problem solved. No judges or point system required and it would separate the men from the boys.

[billeau2]

I think the round-by-round approach is a little irritating. In fights such as Garcia-Peterson, there were close rounds given away early by Lamont and then clear rounds won by him later on. If you outclass someone for 5 rounds but lose 7 very tight ones in which neither fighter is particularly effective it seems a little unfair. The only problem with this is there is really no better system and to change from this format would increase the subjectivity of scoring.

Good point I was thinking the same thing; there has to be a way to show winning a round that is tight with little consequence versus a round where it one guy is much better....part of the problem with this is that there is not enough variation is scoring: we can have the 10-9 a 10-8 but not all 10-9 rounds are created equal! What if we had a scoring system with more point differences? That would solve some of that problem. The numbers used would have to change.

[billeau2]

What about more 10-8 rounds where you clearly dominate. I know it suppose to be that way but almost never is. Either that and/or more 10-10 rounds where it's too close to call. Seems the only way is to get 10-8 is a knockdown.

How about judges watching on TV monitors vs ringside. Can you see better that way?

This is another way of using scoring.... Yur scoring idea I think would work well. There is this prejudice to not score draws and to not use 10-8 rounds too much and one simply must ask why?


Regarding visual aids this has been asked about and again...judges don't want em and why!? Instant replay was eventually put on football with the refs trying to kill it every step of the way....we know the hand is quicker than the eye a judge's best vantage point would be a visual screen with great acuity. judges have virtually no way of determining how punches land and when they are slipped at certain angles. very quick playback would be a possability. So that punches could be looked at between rounds

[Barcham]

As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the rules preventing a judge from giving a 10-8 for a round where one fighter totally dominates the other without a knockdown. It just takes a judge with balls to start things rolling. Chances are that if one did do this, he would never judge a fight again though.

[Wizardsh]

The only solution to solving bad scoring and corruption Is to have an un official winner announce at the end of the fight,then have a live panel judging the fight from a replay of the fight that night and officially declare a winner that night. This is not rocket science, this is the solution to the solving the problem but people are just to ******ed to see this