There is almost ALWAYS a winner and loser in a round

There is almost ALWAYS a winner and loser in a round so why do you get some people who think fighter "A" won a fight because he won the rounds he won more convincingly ? you have to score fights numerically on rounds won not who won his rounds more decisive. You must score a fight ROUND BY ROUND.

You cant watch/score a fight, then at the end when you tally your scorecard up think " fighter A has won the fight numerically, but it feels like fighter B won the fight because of how decisively he won the rounds" What are you going to do rip up your scorecard at the end and give the decision to fighter B because he won his rounds more decisive or because it feels like he won the fight? you cant do that, because the procedure to selecting the winner of a fight is to score round by round.

That is one of the reasons Glen Johnson did not beat Chad Dawson. He won the rounds he won bigger, that is all. Dawson took the first 5 rounds on most people's cards and you only need 6 rounds to (get a draw) ensure you do NOT lose. Glen Johnson needed to win 7 rounds not 6.


That is why Calzaghe beat Hopkins. Numerically he won more rounds, but he did not win the rounds he won as DECISIVELY as Hopkins won the rounds he won. Calzaghe won some rounds for hussle a bussle, but the other guy was not doing anything so you have no choice in that situation but to score for the fighter forcing the action and making the fight. No im NOT a Calzaghe fan BTW.

Lets forget for a min that Tarver was having more success than almost ANY other fighter had, had against the GREAT Roy Jones, and that he won the rounds he won CLEARLY. Numerically he lost more rounds......so he lost the fight.


Rant over

 

From what i REMEMBER Dawson won the first 5 rounds clearly, but ive have not seen the fight since it happened so.........

 

Yep spot on :good

The 10 point must system is flawed, but by the same token changing it makes interpretation very subjective.

I thought Hagler won that fight clearly. I cant remember by how many rounds, but i did think he was jobbed.

 

I was thinking imagine if they did away with scorecards period and scored the fight on who they thought had won the fight at the end of the fight.

Obviously they would base it on who THEY thought was the more effective not necessarily throughout the contest but on a whole. Then again that might be just as subjective and controversial.

 

What about, if you scored more drawn/even rounds?

That might give an incentive to go out and win the round more decisive and enhance the entertainment value in the process, then perhaps when they announce the winner it would be for the guy whom won more rounds, but decisively. Maybe then you would feel like the more effective fighter won the fight as apose to the guy who won more rounds based upon a flawed stystem

I dont know im just throwing it out there. What do you think?

 

Not seen that fight. It does sound a bit like Conteh vs Saad though in terms of how consistently BOTH fighters used the jab, and there was very little to choose from in the rounds that went either way.

 

Don King would be broke, if they had that many judges

Agree though it cant be a bad idea.:good