Ten Point Must System MUST change

[The Gambler1981]

10pt is fine imo. I just think you need more judges. Like a media certified judges. Have a minimum of like 9-10 media members and the maximum would just be the total of actual certified media members.

I also do like the idea of having more judges and taking out the high and low like almost every other judged sport does.

I also prefer that there be a pool of judges around on fight night and the judges are picked just before the fight. Corruption could still be involved but at least it would be a lot more difficult.

[100percentTruth]

I am for half points, that is what I want brought in.

Now using all 10 a guy should only score one if they are getting absolutely destroyed. Right now it wouldn't be fair because there would be no way back in a fight, but if they were more liberal with taking points away it is possible it could be come back from.

I want fight scoring to be able to accurately depict a fight, and right now a guy can win a close fight 120-108 winning every round by an inch, and people would ***** saying that fight is way closer but really if you win every round by an inch that is a legitimate score. Is that really a depiction of the fight? I would say no.

So you can have a close fight be scored totally one sided if you liked the other guys work just barely, and it actually make sense because if you liked a guy in one round you are probably going to like his work throughout.

The 10 point must system is just too basic to accurately depict the complicated nature of a fight as it is now. Corrupt or wrong judging will always be an issue as long as humans are involved so that is not a valid reason not to make the system better.

Using numbers is never a depiction of a fight no matter if they use all the numbers 1-10 or if they use half points.

[The Gambler1981]

Using numbers is never a depiction of a fight no matter if they use all the numbers 1-10 or if they use half points.

So because it isn't perfect it can't be better that it is now?

How is that a real issue?

[The Gambler1981]

I have put a lot of thought into this topic, so if someone has some real reasoning against it I want to hear it.

[SilverMiles]

I understand what you're saying and it sounds like a good idea on paper but I not sure it would make that much of a difference if it is put into effect.

Reason being is that judges have the power to score a close round 10-10 and they already have to the power to score a round 10-8 if they feel one of the boxers did a lot of damage.

I mean everything you said is possible with the system already put in place but judges just tend to score 10-9 because it's easier to do.

[The Gambler1981]

I understand what you're saying and it sounds like a good idea on paper but I not sure it would make that much of a difference if it is put into effect.

Reason being is that judges have the power to score a close round 10-10 and they already have to the power to score a round 10-8 if they feel one of the boxers did a lot of damage.

I mean everything you said is possible with the system already put in place but judges just tend to score 10-9 because it's easier to do.

Judges are not supposed to score even rounds and we both know how uncommon 10-8 rounds are w/o a knockdown.

I think the judges should have more tools (and the ref also) to differentiate (or penalize in the refs case) between the fighters.

Now there are not all that many fights that it would make a huge difference in, but hey if the right guy wins once because of it in the eyes of the fans it is a huge plus.

[Left Hook Tua]

I also do like the idea of having more judges and taking out the high and low like almost every other judged sport does.

I also prefer that there be a pool of judges around on fight night and the judges are picked just before the fight. Corruption could still be involved but at least it would be a lot more difficult.

why can't they pick judges from press row?

guys from espn, ring, latimes, etc. obviously.

not ellie seckback or these other youtube twats.

[100percentTruth]

So because it isn't perfect it can't be better that it is now?

How is that a real issue?

Like I said before, how will it be better?

The most extreme scoring right now without a knockdown or point deduction would be 120-108. If .5 point was introduced, it would be 120-114. How does that help? Let's say it's a close fight. Besides a draw, the closest score you can win by is by 1 point(Marquez vs Pacquiao II), with your idea you can win a fight by half a point? How do you win a fight by half a point?

[The Gambler1981]

why can't they pick judges from press row?

guys from espn, ring, latimes, etc. obviously.

not ellie seckback or these other youtube twats.

I don't care where the judges come from as long as there is like some kind of standard and test. Also they should have to go before someone and be able to at least explain their scoring every fight, not from TV because that is a different angle but give them a go pro to wear and watch that footage with them.

As an aside if a fight is poorly scored you then know who to pelt with objects, those old dudes with the go pros on.

[The Gambler1981]

Like I said before, how will it be better?

The most extreme scoring right now without a knockdown or point deduction would be 120-108. If .5 point was introduced, it would be 120-114. How does that help? Let's say it's a close fight. Besides a draw, the closest score you can win by is by 1 point(Marquez vs Pacquiao II), with your idea you can win a fight by half a point? How do you win a fight by half a point?

Winning is winning, whether you win by an inch or a mile.

Just take two rounds.

Round 1 fighter a nicks fighter b by just barely
Round 2 fighter b put an absolute beating on fighter a but doesn't score a knockdown

Is an average person going to think these two rounds are the same or different? Because now those would both be 10-9 rounds, but if one was 10-9.5 and the other was 10-9 (or 10-8.5) there is a margin like there should be.