It's got nothing to do with aussie boxing but this is the only forum I post in so this is where I'm posting it. What do you guys think of this as an addition to boxing's scoring system? A six-round must system. So wether it be an 8-round, 10-round or 12-round fight, after the first six rounds you go to the score cards. If two of the three judges have it 60-54 the fight is stopped with the 60-point boxer being awarded the win. More or less saying the losing boxer hasn't shown enough competitiveness to continue. The two pro's I believe this could bring are: 1) Excitement: Let's say after the first five rounds of a fight that the likely score would be 59-45. The sixth round wouldn't just be another round, it would be make or break for the losing boxer and add a spike of interest to the fight. 2) Safety: I don't know any stats but I'd take a guess and say that most ring-death's are caused by prolonged beatings. With this system, if it's too one-sided after six-rounds the winning fighter is decided then and there. No need for further punishment. I like boxing as much as the next fan. But I also believe it can be the most boring sport in the world if the bouts too one-sided. Imagine how many 8 or 10-round one sided beatings you've seen on aussie undercards that could have been done and dusted after 6-rounds. I'm sure you could give me examples of classic come-from-behind victory's in history that wouldn't have been possible if this scoring system was in place. But whether or not this would ultimately be a good system it'd at least bring some big pro's. Maybe for 12-round title fight's you could push it to 9-round must's. What's people's thoughts?
How's it gonna work if the score is 60-54 in favour of fighter A over fighter B in a fight where fighter A only just notched out just that little bit extra to win the rounds? The kind of rounds where it could have gone either way but fighter A has landed just that 1 or 2 more punches and just scrapes by winning the round? would fighter B still be classed as not showing enough competitiveness despite only just slightly coming up short?
Pretty much, yes. It would be left in the judges hands so it would be as open to bad scoring as fights already are today. But the "Fighter B" would have to make the call as to what the game plan is after the fifth. If he's confident he's snagged a round he doesn't get worried about the scorecards. If he doesn't trust the judges and doesn't wanna leave it in their hands he pick-up the pace in the 6th and makes sure he wins it convincingly. I know where you're coming from. A fighter could still be going alright after 6 even if he hasn't won a round. It's a good point
i see where you are going with it but you are kidding yourself . how many times have fighters been miles behind after 6 , 8 , 10 and sometimes more rounds and comeback to win ? could you imagine a 12 round title fight where a bloke has finally got his shot and starts slowly losing the first half of the fight , then bam the fights over and so is his shot at a title . sorry mate but this idea is farking ridiculous boxing at high levels eg championship fights is a test over the full distance . if you are copping too big a flogging thats what the ref , your corner , or the docter are there for , hell a fighter can even pull the plug himself if the other 3 dont do it for him .
I applaud and commend the fact that you are thinking of ways to improve boxing but the only benefit I see with such a system, is that fighters will not pace themselves for 12 rounds but go hard for only six. After six they would bank on having at least one round in the bank and now they would take a breather. It could mean that the last six rounds are slower paced and boring, thus not achieving the desired results from such a system. It may put more of a emphasis on physical fitness rather than boxing skill and for this reason "I'm out". :hi:
You must be a really tough guy. Assuming you mouth off in real life like you do in this forum you must be bullet-proof?
I like it! Is there open scoring after 5? If so the 6th round would be a guaranteed *******. Also, If you cant win or draw a round in the first 6 then maybe you shouldnt be in the ring with the bloke in the first place. I understand people would say it takes away from the excitment of the sport as you are in the fight at any time but it would be interesting to see the stats if its been a shut out after 6, how many of the losing fighters have come back to win. I reckon there would be F/A. As you stated to watch a shut out is terribly boring for the general punter.
After the first 6 if the boxer who's losing on the score cards has won or drawn a round he's proven some level of competitiveness and therefore can continue til the bouts natural ending (Decision or KO). I don't have any stats but just off the top of my head I struggle to remember any come from behind wins where the winner hasn't at least snagged a single round within the first six. Yes the ref, corner and even the fighter himself can stop the fight if he's taking too great a beating. But if that's enough reason to take away this systems validity towards the fighters safety, then why do we have the three knock-down rule? Should we scrap that? The best argument I've read against this is it could change how the fight naturally progresses. Which one could argue would change the sport completely. But it would definitely make boring fights more interesting. There are virtually no boxing fans under 30 and the abundance of mismatches you see in the sport would be a big contributing factor because of this. I've been reluctant to get into the UFC but because a lot of my friends are into it I've started to slowly get into it myself and I'll tell you the amount of one-sided beating's you see are far fewer than you see in boxing and if there are mismatches they're generally over within 5 min's. Not 47 min's. Wether or not it's a good system it would make bouts more exciting for the non-boxing fan and bring more people to the sport
Not hooked on this. Would rather like a single world org with all the (one per continent) orgs directly under it, clear rules on how to getting ranked, and on how to become a mando, and the champion having to defend four times a year.
Nice one BOOM if people keep thinking about ways to improve and make the sport safer the better it will be for all involved however the sport is centuries old and slow to take on new ideas and rules , for me unless a fighter is fighting at championship level I would have 7 three minute rounds for novices and also rans .
