Hopkins vs Taylor 1: Perfect example for why the 10-point must system doesn't work

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by horst, Jun 2, 2010.


Page 1 of 3
  1. horst

    horst Guest

    On a thread regarding the 10-point must system which was going on in the Classic forum a couple of months ago, I made these two posts:





    When I bring this idea up, people just shrug it off because they can't conceive of boxing without the 10 point-must system, but when I was re-watching Hopkins-Taylor 1 the other night I realized that this fight is THE example of why the 10-point must system doesn't work and why a system based on the 1,2,3 marking criteria would be better.

    Here was my scoring of Hopkins-Taylor 1...

    R1: Taylor 10-9
    R2: Taylor 10-9
    R3: 10-10
    R4: 10-10
    R5: Hopkins 10-9
    R6: Taylor 10-9
    R7: Hopkins 10-9
    R8: Taylor 10-9
    R9: Taylor 10-9
    R10: Hopkins 10-9
    R11: Hopkins 10-9
    R12: Hopkins 10-9

    TOTAL: 115-115


    Some points to consider...

    - If you were numbering the rounds from 1st to 12th on the basis of how clear the round was won, I'd have Hopkins taking all 3 top spots, for rounds 10, 11 and 12.

    - Jermain Taylor basically only landed jabs the whole night. I didn't notice him land one single hard clean hook or uppercut, I didn't see him land a single successful combination.

    - Jermain Taylor didn't really win one round really conclusively. His boxing was very nice in round 6, but as I've said he was not landing combinations, he was just doing some neat, safe, tidy boxing.

    - Bernard Hopkins was never hurt at any point, Taylor was badly hurt in 2 or 3 rounds.

    - The rounds that Taylor won were rounds that he won purely by being more active and more busy. For example, I gave Taylor round 1, even though he did nothing at all except flick out a few jabs, but I felt I had to go with Taylor as B-Hop did nothing whatsoever. Now compare this with round 10, where Taylor was badly hurt, holding on, and trying to survive, while Hopkins landed clean, solid punches in sequence, and won a very clear, dominant round. But round 1 was a 10-9, and because Hopkins didn't knock Taylor down, that was a 10-9 as well (I am aware that a 10-8 can be given without a KD, but in practice those are only given for exceptionally one-sided rounds like round 7 of Pac-Oscar). Is it fair that every round is scored the same, when every round is patently not the same?



    Basically, Bernard Hopkins won that fight because he did more clean, effective work in more rounds.

    However, I scored it a draw by the 10-point must system rules.

    That's why I think we need a system to reflect who does the more clean, effective work in most rounds.

    Thoughts? :bbb
     
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    #1
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,965
    48,023
    Mar 21, 2007
    It's interesting stuff, but boxing has been scored by rounds forever. It's what definies the sport. You and your opponent both know what is at stake - the round. They box for it. The better boxer wins the round.

    Your ideas aren't bad, but they do call for MORE involvement by judges - that is, judges judging more extensively, degrees of dominance etc. Boxing is notoriously difficult to judge, being subjective. Introducing more subjective judging not only increaes capacity for corruption and incompetence, it also makes the things harder for the fighters themselves - they go from worrying about winning rounds to trying to compute the degree of dominance involved.

    It might work with some form of open scoring,but for me, the current system is okay.
     
    McGrain, Jun 2, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 2, 2010
    #2
  3. v2k987

    v2k987 Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,257
    1
    Apr 11, 2008
    The fighters know the system. They have no excuse for letting 6 rounds slip by without doing anything because it means they then need a 10-8 round to win. Their fault man, i don't see the problem that you do with the 10 point system.

    In fact, the example you gave rewards someone being able to set a tempo and effectively control the distance
     
    v2k987, Jun 2, 2010
    v2k987, Jun 2, 2010
    #3
  4. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    The only thing that needs to be done is that 10-8 rounds are not only awarded for KDs but also when a round is won clearly and that rounds should be 9-9 when neither one does much.
     
    bodhi, Jun 2, 2010
    bodhi, Jun 2, 2010
    #4
  5. horst

    horst Guest

    Thanks for the reply McGrain, good stuff as always. Nice avatar by the way, who is that?
     
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    #5
  6. horst

    horst Guest

    Yeah, that would be a very good improvement on the current system.
     
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    #6
  7. Scratch2win28

    Scratch2win28 Member Full Member

    318
    0
    Jan 21, 2008
    I like your idea but I can't see the judges wanting to get that involved.....HELL they can barely get the 10 point point system down.
     
    Scratch2win28, Jun 2, 2010
    Scratch2win28, Jun 2, 2010
    #7
  8. horst

    horst Guest

    Should the reward for setting a tempo and controlling the distance be the same reward as for landing clean, damaging punches on your opponent and comprehensively outboxing and outfighting him?
     
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    #8
  9. horst

    horst Guest

    :lol: That's probably true.
     
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    #9
  10. zicas

    zicas Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,003
    457
    Aug 12, 2007
    This ^
     
    zicas, Jun 2, 2010
    zicas, Jun 2, 2010
    #10
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,965
    48,023
    Mar 21, 2007

    That's Christina Hendricks.
     
    McGrain, Jun 2, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 2, 2010
    #11
  12. horst

    horst Guest

    Succulent.

    PS: Since we're on this thread, how did you score B-Hop vs Taylor 1?
     
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    horst, Jun 2, 2010
    #12
  13. Reppin501

    Reppin501 The People's Champ Full Member

    21,943
    3,300
    Apr 26, 2010
    No disrespect but to say Taylor was "badly" hurt in 2-3 rounds is ****ing idiotic, can you cite me the 2-3 rounds where Taylor was "badly hurt". It's convienient that you score rounds 3 and 4 as 10-10 rounds, dude GTFOH JT won both those rounds, a 10-10 round that's so ****ing Bush league. There's nothing wrong with the "scoring" if you want to *****, ***** about B-Hop trying to half ass his way through a fight with a hungry young fighter. It pisses me off because Jermain Taylor is what's right about boxing. Sure he's done now, and I hate that, but he backed down from no one, he ducked no one, he made unreasonable demands to no one, he went toe-to-toe with the best the sport had to offer he won some and lost some. He has been criticisized and torn apart in some cases rightfully so, but at a minimum the man has earned his ****ing credit. He beat Hopkins simple and plain, not once but twice, 5 of the 6 judges from both fights had JT winning both, please spare me this bull****. Hopkins didn't batter JT, he didn't "hurt him badly", he realized what he had done and started fighting a bit desperate at the end of fight 1 and I mean he's an ATG what do you expect, but never was able to finish the job, period.
     
    Reppin501, Jun 2, 2010
    Reppin501, Jun 2, 2010
    #13
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,965
    48,023
    Mar 21, 2007

    I get them confused. I had one a draw twice and one scored three different ways on three different viewings.
     
    McGrain, Jun 2, 2010
    McGrain, Jun 2, 2010
    #14
  15. Reppin501

    Reppin501 The People's Champ Full Member

    21,943
    3,300
    Apr 26, 2010
    I think the more you ask judges to do or use their "judgement" the greater the chance of mistakes and bad judgment. The simpler and easier to score, the easier it is to evaluate and have some accountability. I think when you start getting into abstract or undefined things such as controlling the ring, controlling distance, etc you open the possibility for even worse decisions than you already have, hence I would prefer it stay as is. I agree with some of the previous posters that I think judges should be more liberal with the 10-8 round outside of a KD's, which would provide a bit more consideration for dominant rounds. Sorry for the JT rant, it's a sensitive subject for me.
     
    Reppin501, Jun 2, 2010
    Reppin501, Jun 2, 2010
    #15
Page 1 of 3