Should the judging/scoring system in pro boxing be reformed?

I agree. It makes it harder for judges to cheat if their scoring is transparent during the fight. If Adalaide Byrd's scoring had been made public during the fight the crowd would have gone absolutely berserk.

 

Yes, the inherent corruption in the system won't be changed unless there's a universal governing body. Obviously it would be so difficult to bring about because the promoter/commission structure is so entrenched, but the necessity should be brought up when people mention what amount to no more than cosmetic reforms.

I definitely agree the 10 point must system needs to be improved. I'll just repost what I posted a few months ago...

We need to separate between boxers more in scoring rounds, to better reflect what actually happened.That could be accomplished by using more of the available points of the 10 point system. As it is boxing is scored on an almost strictly rounds system. A total whitewash round is scored the same as a tight round won on a light jab that had no sway in the action.

If only 'close' rounds were scored 10-9, while 'clear' rounds 10-8, 'dominant' rounds 10-7, and 'completely outclassed' rounds 10-6 scoring would better reflect not just who won more rounds, but who won the whole bout. 10-8 rounds would be just as frequent as 10-9, and 10-6 would be the equivalent of current rarely used 10-8 rounds without a knockdown. I guess a knockdown round would be 10-6, and any additional knockdown that round 1 more point. This wouldn't be perfect, there would be plenty of disputes about whether a round should be 10-9 vs 10-8 vs 10-7, and it wouldn't change the corruption and conflict of interest biases inherent in boxing scoring. But I'm sure this would clarify some close decisions, and at worst the principle that acknowledging that not all rounds are equal is surely a positive.

I'd score Golovkin-Canelo with this scaled system like this...

1 Golovkin 10-9
2 Canelo 10-8
3 Canelo 10-8
4 Golovkin 10-8
5 Golovkin 10-8
6 Canelo 10-8
7 Golovkin 10-8
8 Golovkin 10-8
9 Golovkin 10-8
10 Golovkin 10-9
11 Canelo 10-8
12 Canelo 10-8

110-108 Golovkin. Compare that not to 115-113 but to 110-106, that would be the most common 10-8 each round. So Canelo gets a bit more credit, because the two rounds I considered barely won or could see going either way I gave to Golovkin. Many even closely matched fights involve at least one or two 'dominant' rounds that would be scored 10-7, but neither Golovkin or Canelo dominated or significantly outpunched the other for even two straight minutes of any round. So GGG-Canelo might not be the best example of the benefits of a scaled scoring system. What using this system for a fight like GGG-Canelo does show is some 7-5 bouts are closer than other 7-5 bouts, and that it should be fair for even a 7-5 card to result in a draw.

 

The WBC suggested:

1) Judges wear noise-cancelling headphones to filter out the crowd.

2) Open scoring every 4 rounds

 

I also like using five judges, and open scoring each round. The argument against open scoring seems to only be tradition, the suspense of not knowing who's winning. For those who say guys will coast if they know they're winning, well that's better than guys coasting because they 'think' they're winning, which happens all the time as it is.

 

Hire X boxers as judges, make sure they are neutral, but they know how to scored a fight. Make sure they are not paid off. We need a federal boxing commission, actually an international boxing commission to over see fight fixing! Read the Judd Berstein letter to the attorney Gen. those are facts....................read it!

 

Personally I think the system should be completely reformed:

1) Rounds are still scored by giving 10 points to the winner, however the other fighter gets a score which can have one decimal point. Like in gymnastics.

E.g. 9.8 or 9.9 for a very, very close round, 8.X for a dominant round without a knockdown. A knockdown still bears a 1.0 penalty, so an average KD round is still 10-8.

This extra flexibility is needed to distinguish between clear and close rounds. It would also encourage fighters to use more effort in rounds they have already lost, leading to more interesting fights.

2) Five judges for world title fights, the highest and lowest scores are discard each round. The other three are averaged to get the round score.

3) (Optional) If the final scores of each round added up are close enough (e.g. less than 0.5 PTS apart), it's a draw as that seems fairer than giving the win with a tiny margin.

 

I'd like open scoring. People generally tell me it's a bad idea because it causes the judges to influence each other.

I'm not convinced this is a problem, especially as they're biased by the commentators and crowds anyway. Even if it is detrimental, they can just not inform the judges of each other's scores (via noise canceling headphones, which judges should probably be wearing anyway).

And they flat out should just have more judges. It's all benefit and no loss in terms of score quality.

I've also been toying around with the idea of comparing the judges' cards at each round, rather than at the end.

E.g., if round one was scored as 10-9, 10-9, and 9-10, you could just say the final score for round one is 10-9, as that's what the majority of judges felt.

 

I don't want to say how I suggested modifying the scoring system is best, whatever changes are made should require thorough analysis and testing. But the principle of distinguishing between clear and close rounds should be a must.

 

Fully agreed on all points.

 

A poster above mentioned noise cancelling headphones which is a great idea as it would take crowd reactions out of the equation. There is not too much you can do though, I would like greater accountability so when we see a card like 118-110 in the GGG/Canelo fight, the judge should be forced to submit a written account of how they scored each round and then this should be made available to the public. When we see one of these cards, we never see any accountability or reasoning for why they scored the way they did.

 

Not so crazy - sport of Bando (Burmese fighting) you can only win by KO - everything else is a draw and you dont get paid by the gamblers for draws.Big motivation for KO's. Never happen though. Open scoring and good vetting of judges are the best improvements possible IMO.

 

It's very true that human corruption (and may I add error/incompetence) is the root cause and that no scoring system can avoid this.

However, IMHO, both reducing the effects of this via 5 judges instead of 3 is possible, as well as improving the system by differentiating between borderline rounds and one-sided rounds.

For example, let's say I win 5 clear rounds and there are 7 borderline rounds. I could lose without it being a robbery, however to most people I ought to win.

 

Open scoring is not an option. A weak judge may be negatively influenced if he knows he is out of line with the other two. Also a boxer who knows he has 7 in the bank could run for the remaining rds and make for a dull fight. 5 judges would reduce the number of promotions when a promoter has to fly in 2 extra judges, put them up, feed them and pay them. Noise cancelling would affect good judges who use noise to know if and how a punch has landed. Good judges know how to shut out bias crowds and all the other tricks used such as trainers telling their boy that he has won that rd loud enough for the judge to hear him when in fact he has lost it. Scoring fights is a tradition which as flawed as it may be should not be tampered with too much. The main changes should be more 10-8 rds as a couple of guys here have suggested. Also something has to be done about incompetent judges who keep getting jobs that they are incapable of doing.