Should the 10 point must scoring system be replaced?

Sometimes if a fighter A is losing a number of real close rounds, i will most likely give him the nod in a even round against fighter B.

 

I think that if a fighter just edges a close round it should be scored 10-9,
if he clearly wins the round 10-8 & 10-7 for a knockdown or total domination from start to finish.

 

I think the automatic point off for a knockdown often hurts the scoring of rounds. When one fighter dominates the round, suffers a flash knockdown and gets up at the count of 3, then finishes strong, the round should be scored even at worst (or sometimes in favour of the man knocked down, depending how dominant he was before and after). Judges should be able to use their own discretion to decide whether a knockdown is worthy of stealing a round, but to give them more freedom you need better, and less corrupt, officials. I think therein lies the problem, not necessarily the scoring system but the scorers themselves.

Though I do think more rounds could be scored even, though this is best done in a round with little action or when both fighters are ineffectual or cancel each other out. The danger is judges scoring it even as a way to get out of making a difficult decision in a close, action packed round.

 

The only thing I dont like about the 10 point must is that a knockdown has a smuch weighting as winning a round, but theres no better system IMO

 

Years ago in the Amateurs, they use to have a 20 point must system. The winner of the round would get 20 points and the loser 19 or less.

If one boxer won a very close round, the score would be 20-19, if he won the round outright, the score would be 20-18, if he dominated the round, the score would be 20-17, if he scored a knockdown, or standing 8 count, and dominated the round, the score would be 20-16.

I never understood why a boxer should get 9 points when the other boxer beat him to one side of the ring to the other.

The reason they use the 10 point must system is that it is easy to figure out. I just wish they would use the points a little better. If they did, a very close round, the score would be 10-9, if he won the round outright, the score would be 10-8, if he dominated the round, the score would be 10-7, if he scored a knockdown, or standing 8 count, and dominated the round, the score would be 10-6, BUT that is never going to happen.

We all saw fights that one boxer dominated the other boxer in 5 of the 12 rounds, even scoring a knockdown in one of the rounds and the other boxer won the rest of the rounds by a small margin and came out the winner 114-113.

 

Personally, I don't see any major problems with the 10 point must system. That's not to say there are no problems, but, as of right now, I can't think of a better system. If we want better decisions, my solution is more judges...maybe 7 in important fights. That would make bad decisions, at least in title fights or elimination fights, less likely...in my opinion.

 

I think it should be replaced with a new scoring system.

Under the 10-point system, this can easily happen:

- One guy wins the first 6 rounds. He has won none of these rounds emphatically or widely, it is a very dull fight, but he is snapping his jab out all the time and the other guy isn't, he wins each round purely because he is more active

- The other guy wins the next 6 rounds far more convincingly. He does not drop guy A at any point, he never has him staggered or looking hurt, but he is now outjabbing guy A, landing combinations, and is far busier. It's fast and competitive, but guy B has the edge in every round

Now, by the rules, it is absolutely fair, just and correct that this fight is scored 114-114... yet guy B has thrown far more punches, landed far more punches, and if you were putting the rounds from 1st to 12th on how convincing and easy to score they were, he would take all 6 of the top 6 spots. Basically, he had far more of the fight than the other guy, and did much more effective work.


The system does not work.

 

The problem is solved by being more liberal with 10-8 rounds to draw a distinction between shading a round and dominating one and also with the even rounds.

Unfortunately a culture seems to have developed where by judges feel complelled to score every round 10-9 except in the case of a knockdown, meaning we are unlikely to see this change any time soon.

 

@Popkins

Agree totally... problem is however, I don't know of a better system

All I can think of is to award more 10-8 rounds drawing a distinction between the types of rounds you discribe.

I don't think the system needs to be overhauled just a different approach from the judges would make the system work far better as I see it, what do you think?

 

I think it'd be really, really easy to make a better system. Something as simple as this would work:

0 - Mark given to losing fighter
1 - Given to both fighters in the event of an even round
2 - Mark given to a fight who edges a close round
3 - Mark given to fighter who scores a knockdown or dominates a round

Done.

 

How about the Bernard Hopkins scoring system? The first 8 rounds don't count and the last 4 do count.

 

They had that system years ago. The loser got 0 points and the winner got 1 to 5 points. An even round was scored 1-1.

Look at these scores: Tommy Hart 12-2 | judge: George Latka 16-1 | judge: Lee Grossman 13-1

That was a bout between 2 of my friends, Emile Griffith and Gaspar Ortega. Emile won by a TKO in the 12th round, so those were the scores after 11 rounds.

 

Boxing scoring is subjective and it is subjective for a reason. Cany ou justify making one aspact of boxing ore important than another. Should you give the round to the boxer weh lands the most punches which is how amatrure boxing is scored. What the who land s the hardest punches or who lands at a higher% rate? What about defense or ring generalship? Even if you say yes to any of these I'm sure the next person will say yes to another aspect.

 

I agree with this but probably to a less extreme. It's not the 10 point system, but the idea that draw/tie rounds are hardly given. 10-10 rounds can and should be given more often. They did this in the old days more often and they should now. Makes things much more thorough and fair I think.