Should damage be a bigger factor in scoring bouts?

Let’s say a feather fists and a power puncher are fighting. Mr pillow hands is boxing well and wins the first 6 rds but does zero damage. The next 6 rds the puncher takes over and is just landing hammering shots that are clearly rocking and bloodying Mr pillow hands. Zero knockdowns occur, so it’s a draw. Is it really a draw though? Technically yes, but as a fight itself, damage should be a factor right? Would you say this is a flaw in the scoring system we have?

Edit: An example would be Ward vs Kovalev 1. The fight was close yes, but in a scenario like that shouldn’t we just give it to the guy whose punches were actually doing something. It’s pretty silly that a guy can win a bout just from tapping.

 

You are completely right. Your scenario is exactly why the evolution of the 10 point must system has become so damaging. I am a big believer in using more of those 10 points. 10-9 for a close round, 10-8 for a big round with no knockdown, 10-7 for a knockdown. It also leaves room for a round where fighter A was winning the whole way and suffered a flask knockdown toward the end of the round. That could be 10-8.

It is absurd that every round without a knockdown is basically 10-9.

 

I'd be all for a big overhaul of scoring tbh.

Boxing is an entertainment. We want to watch drataic fights where either guy has a chance of victory. We want it to excite us.

No one wants to see a glorified sparring session.

 

I think it overcomplicates things and makes the sport less aggressive (not a good thing).

Because then if you have done visible damage to your opponent there is no need to knock him out anymore. So no one will go for the knockout anymore.

 

Some heads are easier to damage than others.

 

Your question is wrong, I think. Imho, after reading your comment the question that you want to ask is "should boxing be scored round by round?"

In your examples mr pillow makes more damage than mr hands of stone during the first 6 rounds, even if it is very small damage or next to zero. So he wins the rounds fair and square because mr hands of stone does even less damage.


Rounds are not scored by the number of punches. Damage ALREADY IS a factor (the main factor actually) in scoring fights, and if anyone is not taking damage into account while scoring a round he is scoring it wrong.

Scoring the fights round by round 1 point per round (well, 9/10, ok) leads to weird results though, yes. Nevertheless, probably scoring it with any other system would lead to weird results as well, so it doesnt bother me very much, tbh.

 

Knockdowns and the 10-8 already exist to give the power puncher the advantage over Joey Maxim. If the guy throwing the stronger punches isn't scoring knockdowns why do they deserve additional credit other than the round they are already winning? Also if those punches were so powerful you could look it as a way of giving the loser of the round credit for "weathering the storm" and not going down.

 

This content is protected

The problem is I don't trust the likes of these guys ^ to use these criteria; this would just add new ways for coming up with bs scorecards.

I think, when it comes to scoring, boxing needs to fix corruption, lack of transparency and accountability of judges first and foremost. Unlike other sports, boxing is not improving at all over the years in these aspects.

 

Also to add to my post before, if you award doing damage even more there is zero incentive for punchers to invest in their boxing anymore.

Occasionally the puncher becomes the boxer like Kovalev vs Ward. (Kovalev won that fight in my opinion but that’s a different discussion).

 

It's already a factor but whether it should be a bigger factor is really dependent upon the match up.

I mean most people had Lewis behind vs Vitali, myself included but if we go by damage Lewis was ahead because Vitali's face was sliced open in multiple places.

Sometimes fighters swell up and cut easier than others, even when faced against non punchers they just naturally look more battered.

Then we have chin vs power. I often feel punchers power factors too much into scoring against some fighters. For example does it matter if fighter A hits like a truck when fighter B has a Marvin Hagler like chin and takes every shot like nothing and fighter B a decent puncher can hurt and does hurt fighter A because while fighter A can punch harder he has a weak chin. So do we still give fighter A more credit for his punches which have no effect on his opponent? No obviously not, but I think that happens too often in boxing with people over emphasising a punchers when scoring a fight. Which is some way in understandable because even commentary falls for that and plays into the narrative.

 

It won't be long before judges are done away with completely and scoring is done by AI, which will be able to determine the force and accuracy of every punch thrown.

 

Score the way it is ffs. But that doesn't matter because there's corruption.

If it's a draw it's a draw. If one guy wins the first 6 rounds feather fisted or not, he wins the first 6 rounds. Regardless if he gets '' damaged '' in the next 6. If they're 10-9 rounds to the other guy, that speaks for itself.

****ing hell. You guys should go sell computers for Frank Costanza and call yourself Lloyd Braun. Because frankly the **** you're coming out with sounds made up.

 

The fights a draw but one guys more damaged. Yeah give it to the other guy.



Makes sense.

 

They have had 55 years to get the scoring right and there still isn't a unified scoring criteria, so the main issue is judges score what they like not what a scoring criteria dictates.

 

In the scenario you give, yes it can happen and is fair because fights are scored by the round. Now, if a pillow fist lands 10 soft punches in a round and the heavy fisted lands 5 hard shots, you can score it for the hard hitter because effective aggression is part of the scoring process.