Scoring methodology

There could possibly be the inclusion of ringside refs for minor infringements, the same way there are linesmen in football. They have certain things to focus on and they keep the ref updated between rounds who in turn keeps the judges updated regarding any penalties. This would be extra to the ref's account of what they've witnessed during the round. This combined with open scoring. Just making unbiased judges and refs available would be a great start though which shouldn't be difficult.

 

The 10 point must system is in place. Fights can only be scored using that system. Using other systems is not permitted. Get over it.

 

Some of the biggest punches of the fight were Haney body shots.

 

That’s what I loved about Pride fighting championship in Japan.
It was an MMA organization and their system was to judge the fight overall instead of per round.
Their main criteria for judging was damage… Basically, who would you rather be at the end of the fight.
They also had a system that if you tried to stall or foul, they would warn you and then they would start giving you yellow cards… Each yellow card took away at least 10% of your purse.
It’s amazing how much people will fight their arses off and not foul when it starts costing them money!!!
They also didn’t give a shite about how many losses a guy had as long as they showed bushido or warrior spirit… In other words, as long as you didn’t bore the arse off the crowd, you would be invited back win or lose.
Their judges were also former fighters.
Our system for boxing just doesn’t work… We need an overhaul of all the officials worldwide as they are either corrupt or completely incompetent.
It’s got to be one of the only jobs that you can be completely and utter shite at with no consequences, in fact you will probably get promoted… And these spineless fu**ers have modern day warriors careers and destiny in the palm of their sweaty little hands.
They don’t even need to go before the camera and explain how they seen a fight completely different than the rest of the world!!!

Rant over… I’m starting to feel like Teddy Atlas

 

Please supply a link to boxing rules where initiating a clinch is against the rules.

How can you expect to intelligently discuss scoring if you don’t even know what the rules are?

A close round under the scoring system is 10-9, even if a fighter just edges it, as is a round with no major damage where a fighter more clearly won it. So the idea that Loma won his rounds more clearly doesn’t come into play. Yet another thing you apparently don’t understand.

There are four points to scoring. You show zero grasp of them.

It’s like me saying ‘Well the Cowboys touchdowns were longer plays than the Eagles TDs, so they should count for more points’ and then concluding that the Cowboys should have won even though the Eagles scored 28 points and the Cowboys 27. You’re literally making up your own ideas of how you think things ‘should be’ and then using that to make a determination that Loma won … because you say so, lol.

Start from scratch. Look up boxing scoring. Then score fights according to the actual rules. Come back when you’ve gotten that figured out.

 

What are the 'four points of scoring'?
Genuinely asking out of interest.

 

Shakur got called out not that long ago for probing with his jab by the ref. I'm still not too sure as to how you can or can't use a jab in that respect.

 

Hard/clean punches: Partial or glancing blows, or pitty-pats, don’t count the way clean, solid punches do.

Effective aggression: Effective being the key word here — coming forward while following the opponent around like a puppy dog doesn’t earn favor

Defense: Slipping, parrying, blocking, etc.

Ring generalship: The hardest to articulate, but you should know it when you see it — who is dictating the terms of the fight, who is ‘in command’ more … if Joe Frazier comes bobbing and weaving and cuts off the ring and gets in close or gets his guy on the ropes, he’s the ring general in that round; if Ali is dancing and moving and Joe can’t catch up to him, he’s the general.

Of course this is on a round-by-round basis, not a general overall impression.

One thing most people seem to fail to grasp is that a 12-round fight can be close, VERY competitive, and end up 120-108 on all cards and be scored thus correctly — if Fighter A edges all 12 rounds, even by the barest margins, in the eye of a judge it’s 120-108. Just because rounds are close doesn’t mean someone didn’t win them, and it can be the same fighter every round (or it could be back and forth in that regard, with each guy winning six each and be fairly scored a draw by that judge).

 

Who has the 10 point system at their disposal?

That's the problem

 

It’s a ridiculous argument by OP to say, ‘I don’t like how this fight (or any given fight) came out, so let’s pretend fights are scored differently and we can all agree my guy won.’

People will often come here with some slow motion of a fight (like judges sitting at ringside have that at their disposal, lol) and count punches and say ‘see, my guy won.’ Except:

1) Fights aren’t scored after the fact in slow motion by people who have camera views and such

2) Pro fights aren’t scored by counting punches anyway — every punch is not equal. If you just want to count how many times each guy touches the other with his gloves, that’s how amateur boxing works so they should give that a try.

One thing I absolutely loathe is using Compubox or some similar kind of counting system to bolster arguments. Compubox literally calls anything other than a jab a ‘power punch’ — which is misleading as hell. There are guys like Larry Holmes, Oscar de la Hoya and Ike Quartey, to list three, who have extremely powerful jabs … to say those aren’t power punches but a tap to the body is, well that’s just insane. Likewise, an orthodox fighter could stick his right out and connect just like a jab and Compubox would count that as a power punch even though … it’s just a jab with the other hand.

 

Hadn't heard of compubox until now and after googling it... It's an evaluation of the data that people have put into it. Close fights are awesome. Could go either way. If those discrepancies continually lean towards the favour of blind subordination. Which in turn continually relishes such judgements to the point that the outcome is a joke. That's bias. Then what's the solution? How do we fight or solve corruption in boxing?

 

The 10-point scoring system has a lot of deep imperfections, but if it was applied properly can still lead to mostly fair outcomes.

 

To increase accuracy within the 10 point must scoring system, it is a good idea to try and split close rounds wherever possible, within what you deem reasonable. The concept of splitting close rounds means that if there are more than 1 close round, particularly multiple close rounds in a row, that it's important to avoid giving every close round to the same fighter, particularly if the fighter that you're scoring close rounds against is doing something better that the other fighter is doing. If you give all or most of the close rounds in a fight to one fighter, even if it's justified, then you're producing an inaccurate score when weighed against other more one-sided rounds that are scored the same.

 

Trying to avoid close rounds when they obviously are so also results in inaccurate decision. A draw is a draw, it happens for fights, so can happen for rounds. It takes nothing from a fighter, it's fair assessment. Trying to avoid it when it is a fact already takes from one of the fighters/gives to the other.