Yeah, you kinda got to abide by the official decision - it may suck on occasion, but otherwise opens the way for all kinds of objections. What I would maybe suggest though is either lowering the close loss bonus to 25% or only giving the 50% in the event of a 'very close' fight (maybe +/- 6 pts). Also I'd maybe make the 'dec close' result a teeny bit closer - perhaps 9 or 10pts, though I guess what counts as a close score varies from person to person.
Like the idea of the multipliers though - it does give the chance of a long pick really bringing your score up (which is just the kind of edge I may need... lol) but it does kinda bring a significant element of luck into it, which some may feel unbalancing.
The benefit of that is that people who are losing half way into the game or join late have an opportunity to possibly get into the game. (Which means they won't feel the need to stop playing / not join)
Hm.... I'll have to give the close fight scoring some more thought.
groves losing in second fight has nothing to do with it seen as i bet on him in first fight and neither does half of the stuff youve put. Groves odds were pretty long and froch has always been a beatable fighter. Not a bad bet seen as he put froch on his pants and was way up on the cards before eddie hearns man decided to jump in as soon as groves got wobbled. If you thought he took too many punches before not responding or was out on his feet i suggest you watch it again.
Only the 80,000 comment regards the second fight
All the rest regarded the first so yes it is relevant
And groves head was down he took about 6 unanswered punches
And it wasn't just me
The ref thought so too
Looks out on his feet to me
And before you start foster wouldn't have groves in a headlock if he was fighting back
It was a lil bit premature but the outcome would have been exactly the same as the 2nd fight
Comment