I was watching a bit of Jimmy Ellis-Jerry Quarry from 1968 in Oakland and Howard Cosell on commentary explained the scoring system thusly: The winner of the round gets from 1-5 points. The loser gets zero. If the judge scores the round even, neither boxer gets a point. He explained that it happened with this scoring that fighters could win more rounds but lose on points. Presumably (not from commentary, my take) this wasn’t as simple as all rounds without knockdowns were 1-0, they might be 2-0 for a clearly dominant round or 3-0 for really dominating and maybe 5-0 with a knockdown or two and a shellacking. The scores for this fight were 10-5, 7-6 and 6-6 per Boxrec, majority decision for Ellis. So I assume Howard got it right in describing the methodology. My question is how the forum feels about this, which comes down to a more ‘liberal’ way of scoring where there’s an easier/better way to differentiate a feeling-out early round where one guy lands four jabs and the other two and it’s scored 10-9, same as a round where a fighter has a pretty obvious edge but no knockdown (which will still end up 10-9 using the 10-point must) or major damage (nobody wobbled but a clear, edge to the winner of the round). i guess it could lead to more debate/discontent over scoring where some judges may be more inclined to give wider variances and others are closer to being strict 1-0 without major damage or knockdowns, but it might also yield a truer picture of how the fight unfolded — if Fighter A wins 6 rounds of a 10-round fight but all those rounds are pretty close and Fighter B wins his four rounds by a big margin … maybe we can argue that Fighter B got the better of it by really showing more separation over 30 minutes of fighting even though he won two fewer rounds. So what do you think of this antiquated system? Was California onto something?
Pat, I too recently checked out the Ellis-Quarry fight, which is scored below. The California system can seem strange, but is so simple when one steps back to look at the whole chess board. I never really saw any of the old California officials going outside the 1 point a round unless it was really just a one-sided battering as you said. And even then, it would just be a 2 point round. So for the most part one would see a nominal amount of points such as Ellis and Quarry. But the best explanation I ever heard on this system was from an old west coast writer named Bill O'Neill (He used to write for BI) who told me, "The California system is exactly like the 10 point system used today, only less math." And if you think about it, he was absolutely right. Jimmy Ellis v Jerry Quarry (vacant WBA heavyweight title) California scoring in effect Round 1: Even Round 2: Ellis Round 3: Ellis Round 4: Ellis Round 5: Quarry Round 6: Quarry Round 7: Even Round 8: Even Round 9: Ellis Round 10: Ellis Round 11: Quarry Round 12: Quarry Round 13: Quarry Round 14: Ellis Round 15: Quarry Total: 6-6 Draw (actual scores: 6-6 Draw, 10-5 and 7-6 Ellis for a majority decision for Ellis)
This sounds similar to the new system that will be introduced shortly in Amateur game (But They will also try to create more transparency with live scoring avaible to public) From Istvan Kovacs - AIBA's secretary: “At the moment 95 per cent of the rounds are 10-9, which is ridiculous. It means if you lose two rounds 10-9, you have no chance of winning the fight, even if it is very close and you win the last round widely, which is not fair. “When we are ready to introduce a new system, we are not deducting points from ten, but we are giving points. It won’t be the same as the typewriter system, we have to understand we have to show the result for the audience during the round, not just at the end and we have to show exactly what is happening in the ring. That will start January 1. " X There's been quite a few scoring system that tried to give judges ability to score rounds by different margin. WBU used to have 20-must system, with rounds scored 20:19 or 20:18 demending on "level of dominance"(Plus the usual knock-downs). In Argentina, judges are scoring close rounds 10:9,5 and dominant rounds 10:9. I didn't notice it making fights more fair. From my experience - it's only giving biased judges more opportunity to manipulate the score in favor of fighter They'd like to give victory to - and since You'll never be able to draw a clear line, there will always be dispute about margin of victory in a round, just like about who won close round. Should that rounds have been scored 3-0? Or maybe 2-0? etc. Disputes and controversies will never disappear. I understand why some people would like that idea, but I prefer the simplicity and transparency of the 10:9 system.
I do like the idea of rewarding someone for winning a round by a bigger margin (not a total beatdown or with knockdowns, just clearly won it without any dispute) and having a way to not call a round even but give a feeling-out type round where little happens a very slim margin. I guess whether it be 10-point must or something like the above-de scripted California 5-point system, I think it would be better if it was a one-point margin for a close round, two points for clearly winning a round and then an extra point to the margin if there’s a knockdown or a guy is seriously hurt and battered.
I liked the Californie system where you were rewarded for winning a round clearly, instead of the standard 10-9 score as of today. There were some controversies over the scoring of the two Pattersom- Quarry fights where some people thought that Patterson got a rough deal because he had won more rounds than Quarry. The New York round scoring system was seen a the best way to score fights. (At least in NY where they thought themselves as the center of world boxing.)
the 10 point must is good if use correctly differently there no reason why 10-9 should be use as standard score. across board. from very close to very clear. is not good sense . only reason is so we can most easily interpret & translate scores into rounds won & lost? actually why not use everything from 10-10 to 10-5 for example? in other words yes the 10 point must should be used in same way as California system could be
It was the California system that won Quarry the second Patterson fight. For some reason one judge gave him a 3 point margin in the fourth round. Without that it would have been a majority draw.
yes in that case we should make all fight to the finish or make all decisions draws or maybe score fights on knockdowns
Maybe you’d be happier picking your favorite fighter as the winner after the fight ends, no scoring needed.
I think judges being unwilling to score rounds even and trying to give it to someone even if basically nothing happened is the flaw in most scoring systems.
Sol, these were my scores on the Patterson-Quarry fights using the California system. Remember what I wrote earlier about the California system was exactly like the 10 point system only less math. So if I translate my scores on the California system to the 10 point system, my 6-5 for Patterson in their first fight becomes 95-94 for Floyd and my 7-5 for Quarry in their 2nd fight becomes 115-113 for Jerry. It holds true that the scoring isn't different and not the cause of Jerry getting the verdict in the second bout. It was the judge, who would have had a 10-7 for Jerry in the 4th if using his same logic and the 10 point system. I personally saw that as only a 2 point round (or a 10-8 if using the 10 point system), but I am sort of a conservative judge. Anyways, for what it's worth: My scores on Patterson v Quarry I & II scored under California rules of 1 point for a round, 2 points if a knockdown is involved and no points for an even round. Patterson-Quarry I Round 1: Even-no points Round 2: Quarry (2 knockdowns) 3 points Round 3: Patterson Round 4: Patterson Round 5: Patterson Round 6: Even Round 7: Patterson (1 knockdown) 2 points Round 8: Patterson Round 9: Quarry Round 10: Quarry Patterson 6-5 (actual scores: 7-6 for Quarry and a 5-5, 6-6 for a majority draw) Patterson-Quarry II Round 1: Patterson Round 2: Quarry (1 knockdown) 2 points Round 3: Quarry Round 4: Quarry (1 knockdown) 2 points Round 5: Even Round 6: Quarry Round 7: Even Round 8: Patterson Round 9: Patterson Round 10: Patterson Round 11: Quarry Round 12: Patterson Quarry 7-5 (actual scores: 6-6 and 2 scores of 7-6 for Quarry for a majority win for Quarry)
I think this is the downside of the California system. In theory, giving the judges more discretion to indicate how clearly a round was won could be good thing. In practice, as you say, it mostly produces identical results to the 10 point must system with 1 point margins for most rounds and 2 points for a knockdown or sometimes for a very one-sided round without a knockdown. What you do get is the occasional maverick judge awarding additional points for reasons which are hard to fathom. The scoring of boxing matches can be pretty erratic as it is - the extra variable just makes it all the more unpredictable. Out of interest, the official scorecards for Quarry-Patterson II: Bybee (ref) Q: 021 201 000 000 = 6 P: 100 000 110 111 = 6 Olmos Q: 020 301 000 010 = 7 P: 100 010 110 101 = 6 Grossman Q: 021 201 001 000 = 7 P: 100 010 110 101 = 6
