Lopez's work was sloppy

[Jrock56]

Loma, was saving it for the end, as was his plan, and at the end, he had nothing left, he had been head butting successfully throughout the fight and landed his best head butt at the end, for which he should’ve had a point deduction. Lopez proved beyond any doubt that he was the superior fighter. He dominated round 12 in ever way.

[Zaroku]

Loma started too slow, and some of those body shots hit his elbows.

[#1PaperChamp]

I didn't see one clean punch land, body shots hit elbow..

Loma landed the better work but Teo had activity.

It's a problem in boxing

Same as Canelo and GGG

Same as Jermell and Tony Harrison

Same as Floyd and Maidana 1/JLC 1

Same as Manny and Horn

Same as Fury and Wilder 1 (although that was still pretty clear for Fury)

Same as JMM and Manny 1, 2, and 3

Boxing has its limitations. Picking between clean, infrequent work or dirty, rugged but constant work has always been a struggle

[Jahredsname]

Loma is a great fighter

[Willie Pep 229]

I agree. It's a flaw of the scoring system, it needs to be more flexible. As it stands, every round is automatically a 10-9 unless there's a knockdown (or as good as), which often doesn't allow the final scores to present an accurate picture of the fight as a whole.

For example, round one - where nothing of any significance happened - was worth as much to Lopez score-wise as round nine was to Lomachenko, a round in which he dominated and greatly outlanded Lopez with clean, effective punches. Instead of scoring both rounds equally, why not score one 10-9 and the other, say, 10-5? Why not use the 10 point system to actually differentiate between close and wide rounds?

There have been countless other fights affected by this, with Badou Jack's draw against Adonis Stevenson being one of the more recent notable cases. It's also the reason why you can have a fight be competitive for the whole twelve, but one guy was slightly better every round and so wins by shut out, resulting in a final score which does no justice at all to the competitiveness of the fight.

A change could be implemented, no question, but I feel that:
1) The current scoring system is so entrenched in the minds of all who follow boxing that such a change would seem too radical.
2) It would probably prove more difficult for corrupt judges to sway the outcome of a fight (without appearing even more guilty than they already do). We know promoters wouldn't want that since the last thing they care about is the integrity of the sport.
3) Honest yet incompetent judging is bad enough as it is. It would likely become even worse under a more complex system open to greater subjectivity.

The ten point must system in practice actually works as a three point must system

close or dominating rounds go 10-9; one KD gets a 10-8; two KD 10-7; and three KDs ends the fight (even when there is no three KD rule in effect).

I agree, a more liberal use of the scoring system is needed.

The Camacho-Rosiaro fight I believe is good example - the fight ended as a UD for Camacho most saw it as a 7-5 fight in rounds - all scored 10-9 totaling 115-113 on two score cards for the Macho Man. But most believe the are at least two rounds maybe three, where Rosiaro was dominate. Take those two points or three points away Camacho as 10-8 rounds and you end up with either a draw or a UD for Rosairo.

I like the five point must system when used liberally.

Even rounds 5-5
Close rounds 5-4
Dominate rounds 5-3
One KD 5-2
Two KD 5-1

Three KDs in a round usually ends a fight.