Boxing is Scored by the Round and Judges Have a Thin Margin of Error

[-PBP-]

It is unrealistic to expect a judge to score a fight with 100% pinpoint accuracy. They are sitting ringside, have obstructed views, and don't get to see the angles that we do on television.

If you believe Fighter A wins 7 or 8 clear rounds, all it takes is a disagreement on 1-3 rounds and the fight goes to Fighter B. Often times one fighter will win 4 or 5 rounds emphatically but the other rounds are close, back and forth rounds that an argument can go either way.

Now I'm not denying that this sport is corrupt. But scoring the fight for the deserving winner requires a level of pin-point accuracy that is difficult to achieve. And the subjective nature of the scoring gives judges leeway to be "generous" to the A-side by giving them the benefit of the doubt in close, disputed rounds.

There really is no solution to the judging problem in boxing. I really don't buy into the public outcry because many judge by the totality of the damage as opposed to scoring the fight on a round by round basis. The lack of transparency in scoring is why you generally see casual fans outraged, and that's understandable.

I think a few other things make it even worse:

1. You can't score even rounds. Realistically, there can be up to 5 or 6 even rounds in a championship fight. But when you are discouraged from scoring even rounds, you are given leeway to give them to the A-side fighter.

2. The "other scoring criteria " - since we have HD tv and various angles, we are more capable of scoring clean effective punching.

But it's difficult to gauge what is clean and what is effective if a fighter isn't stunned by a punch. So you have ring generalship, effective aggression and defense to give judges alternatives in case they can't see the punches clearly.

This also gives them room to justify scoring the fighter for the A side/hometown/house fighter.

[BrometheusBob.]

Yeah, there has to be a middle ground on scoring even rounds. Somewhere between scoring anything close as even and scoring nothing as even.

[Strategic1]

These judges went with the aggressor and more active boxer (Horn) rather than the guy who was clearly more effective.

Horn was pressing forward because Manny is the smaller man and Horn could walk through them.

Pac clearly dominated the 2nd half of the fight. It was clear .. yes, thin margin of error but there were clear Pac rounds from rds 8-12

[b00g13man]

Fantastic thread as always.

[Madison Boxing]

cool fair enough, but if mcgregor goes the distance with mayweather and manages to land half as many punches but gets the nod, i will be saying we cant blame the judges, its a thin margin of error.

[Mister Wolf]

I think the biggest issue is judges not looking at TV feeds minus the commentators when available. The up close window to punches we are seeing on TV they are not.

[kiaba360]

One of the disses we say is, "What fight was that person watching?" in order to suggest that someone is blind not to see the obvious. When you take the viewing angles into account, fights can look pretty different depending on whether you're at home or whether your seat is close/far from the ring. Even-though I agree with your premise, its still frustrating to find those cards that seem to have been filled before the judges got into the arena. That seems to be happening more and more often. It seems like every important fight nowadays has one of those face-palming cards. However, I'm guilty of not scoring rounds when I watch fights. It's also pretty rare when I'm in accordance with the commentator's scorecard. Horn/Pac was competitive, but I don't have a clue as to who definitively won.

[Eff Pandas]

It is unrealistic to expect a judge to score a fight with 100% pinpoint accuracy. They are sitting ringside, have obstructed views, and don't get to see the angles that we do on television.

If you believe Fighter A wins 7 or 8 clear rounds, all it takes is a disagreement on 1-3 rounds and the fight goes to Fighter B. Often times one fighter will win 4 or 5 rounds emphatically but the other rounds are close, back and forth rounds that an argument can go either way.

Now I'm not denying that this sport is corrupt. But scoring the fight for the deserving winner requires a level of pin-point accuracy that is difficult to achieve. And the subjective nature of the scoring gives judges leeway to be "generous" to the A-side by giving them the benefit of the doubt in close, disputed rounds.

There really is no solution to the judging problem in boxing. I really don't buy into the public outcry because many judge by the totality of the damage as opposed to scoring the fight on a round by round basis. The lack of transparency in scoring is why you generally see casual fans outraged, and that's understandable.

I think a few other things make it even worse:

1. You can't score even rounds. Realistically, there can be up to 5 or 6 even rounds in a championship fight. But when you are discouraged from scoring even rounds, you are given leeway to give them to the A-side fighter.

2. The "other scoring criteria " - since we have HD tv and various angles, we are more capable of scoring clean effective punching.

But it's difficult to gauge what is clean and what is effective if a fighter isn't stunned by a punch. So you have ring generalship, effective aggression and defense to give judges alternatives in case they can't see the punches clearly.

This also gives them room to justify scoring the fighter for the A side/hometown/house fighter.

Respect for this reasonable opinion. If I ever start a Reasonable NSB Boxing Fan group here you'll be among my first invitees lol.

But I do think the bold is incorrect. Is there a 100% perfect solution? No, of course not, there never is. Perfect is an unattainable goal.

But is there a less f#cked up solution then the current f#cked up solution we are using right now? Definitely.

What that solution is is up for debate, but it certainly exists cuz I by no means don't see improvements to be made to the current scoring system & have went on & on about them in the past.

The most notable ways in which the scoring can be improved in my eyes is for commissions to adopt a less subjective means of scoring fights that has harder lines to be applied in ones scoring.

And I also believe scoring rounds 10-9 for closer rounds & 10-8 for clear rounds, without a KD, would insure decisions go the right way more often.

I also think a means of judging judges needs to be added to those additions to help fix any corrections that need to be made by those outliers who we might deem to be bad or less correct judges.

[-PBP-]

Respect for this reasonable opinion. If I ever start a Reasonable NSB Boxing Fan group here you'll be among my first invitees lol.

But I do think the bold is incorrect. Is there a 100% perfect solution? No, of course not, there never is. Perfect is an unattainable goal.

But is there a less f#cked up solution then the current f#cked up solution we are using right now? Definitely.

What that solution is is up for debate, but it certainly exists cuz I by no means don't see improvements to be made to the current scoring system & have went on & on about them in the past.

The most notable ways in which the scoring can be improved in my eyes is for commissions to adopt a less subjective means of scoring fights that has harder lines to be applied in ones scoring.

And I also believe scoring rounds 10-9 for closer rounds & 10-8 for clear rounds, without a KD, would insure decisions go the right way more often.

I also think a means of judging judges needs to be added to those additions to help fix any corrections that need to be made by those outliers who we might deem to be bad or less correct judges.

The disconnect is "who scored more points" versus "who won the fight". A fight is won in maybe 4 or 5 key rounds. Those are the rounds the casual observer remembers the most.

But points are scored in every round. So you can score more points, but still lose the fight. That's why you always see complaints about corruption when in some cases, it may just be a difference of views in a handful of close rounds.

The question is do you change the scoring system to put more emphasis on those 4 or 5 key rounds to award victory to the guy "who won the fight?".

I think even rounds is a step in the right direction in getting that result.

What I do like about this scoring system is that every round is equally weighted so you have to fight every round to win even if you build a 5-0 lead. So i think you have to tweak the scoring system in a way that will not encourage coasting.

The biggest fear in open scoring or more point deductions is the fighter in the lead can score a few knockdowns and run and hug the rest of the fight to build a lead and force even rounds.

This scoring system encourages the fighters to fight every round as if they need it to win.

[-PBP-]

cool fair enough, but if mcgregor goes the distance with mayweather and manages to land half as many punches but gets the nod, i will be saying we cant blame the judges, its a thin margin of error.

Well boxing is scored by the round so whether he landed half as many punches would be irrelevant anyways. If Vegas wants McGregor to win then he will win.