i know its been the same for ages but surely its time to move on ? how can someone get knocked down 3 times be a 10-8 round when a close round with 1 flash knock down is the same?perhaps if we had scores from maybe 5-10 each round it could help with mad decisions? also in bodybuilding there are 5 judges i think with the top and bottom scores taken away..
A knockdown should cost a point, so a fighter knocked down three times would need to win the round to lose 10/8 on ten point must, and that is extremely unlikely. Ten point must is far from perfect, but the best scoring system boxing has had. Five judges would increase expense and that would be unfair to smaller promotions who are already struggling financially, and the fighters would not want the extra expense, as it would affect their purse.
I agree something should change and that you were giving a for instance but where would five judges sit? Your theory behind five is good. There's four sides and add the referee would be five but one of the sides I assume is where the TV guys sit and who would want to give referees more things to do deal with but there's maybe something in your idea.
I think no matter it should still be 10-8 or 10-7 etc Regardless of how well the other person does because they got put on their ass, not a easy thing to do so that person deserves the extra point taking even if they dont do anything after
Quote: By Lyle Fitzsimmons New year. New calendar. New hopes and dreams for 2014. And in keeping with this season of renewal, my aim this week is to rattle off a list of the things I most want to see - or those that I most intend to do - by the time the year ends in 351 days. Coming off a year in which the after-taste of too many bad scorecards still lingers from December to January, its a fleeting hope for ways to address that issue - along with a promise about what I wont write about this year, and a wish that the speed of ears passing would ebb. 1 + 1 = 10? Maybe its just incompetence. Or maybe its just the new math. Either way, perhaps the thing that has most troubled the CJ Ross and Duane Ford types in two of the most recently dubious scoring cases is simply that the numbers are too damned complex. Which begs the question Ive been asking toward TV monitors for years: Why is the 10-point must system such a must anyway? I get the idea that scoring a round with points - rather than simply saying Fighter A or Fighter B won it or didnt - allows for the nuances of giving one fighter a larger margin, 10-8 or 10-7, for instance, in the rounds in which he or she is particularly dominant. And Im not suggesting that a return to the old days to score by rounds is better way of doing things. Its absolutely not. But what absolutely is better is this rather than 10 for a rounds winner and 9 or less for its loser, how about 1 for its winner and 0 for its loser? Or, in the case of a round with knockdowns or particularly decisive sequences, how about giving that extra point to the winner - making it a 2-0 or a 3-0 round - rather than subtracting it from the loser for a 10-8 or 10-7? In the end, a guy who wins seven of 12 rounds in a title fight and scores a knockdown while doing it would then be deemed an 8-5 winner, which is far more indicative - and far less complex - than the garden variety 115-112 result thats understood by no one outside of the sport. More accessible, less complex who knows, maybe even CJ could understand. http://www.***********.com/-suggestion-promise-plea-new-year--73612
How would you have scored this round from the Coyle fight on Saturday Colye down once and also a point deducted for hitting after the break His Argie opponent down twice
9-8 Coyle The first knockdown by coyle is cancelled out by the Argie knocking him down. The second knockdown by Coyle scores it a 10-8 round, then 1pt taken off for the deduction