Boxing scoring system flawed

It would matter less, but it still matters a lot.

The difference in becoming a champ or being the loser by a slight margin is quite big, and can be the difference between fighting a high paid megafight next or fighting against some stiff for maybe 50 grand.

And in some cases the difference can be even bigger.
Just think about it what would have happened if the judges gave Norton vs Ali II to Norton, or Frazier vs Ali to Frazier a couple of months later?

 

I don't agree. the fighter that wins the most rounds, should win the fight. No matter how dominant specific rounds are. (unless there are knockdowns, total domination for a 10-8, or penalties)
If two of the three judges give all those 7 rounds to the other fighter, then they weren't really that "close".

I also don't have a problem with draws. I don't mind the idea of longer fights, but not for the purpose of breaking a tie.

Also not sure of more 10-8 rounds. 10-8 for total domination, 10-8 for one knockdown. 10-7 for 2 knockdowns. No 10-6 rounds. The controversy of Pac-Marquez I shouldn't have been there. Pac didn't deserve the win just because he had a completely dominant first round.

 

Change the rules all you want.

It won't make any difference, since the ref & judges will still bought & paid for.

 

Winner of the round should be the one who scored the most.
1 point for any hit on the head.
1 point for any bodyshot.

You get 10 points with a win, 9 with a loss as it already is now.
And you lose 1 point at your first KD in that round, 0.5 point los for every following KD in that round.

 

I hate scorin even rds. I always find sumthin to choose from in a rd thats close.

IMO, It's really all about who does the most damage in the rd. If nobody lands any really hurtful lookin punches, then it's just who landed the most punches.

 

I disagree. You won 7 rounds, you won 7 rounds. That's it. I've never seen a fight in which 7 entire rounds were too hard for me to judge.