Do you believe it needs some sort of reform to make it fairer? I believe the criteria on which it is scored is right, ie; clean punching; effective aggressiveness; ring generalship, and; defense I just don't believe we score fights properly. For example; how often do you see a 10-8 round without a knockdown? How often do you see a 10-10 round when they both score well in a couple of the different criteria? I believe this is a large part of why we see so many contested decisions - that and fans not really knowing the above criteria. As an example; If fighter A is better in criteria 2 & 3, but fighter B is better in criteria 1 & 2, shouldn't that be a 10-10 round? Or, as another example; If fighter A is clearly superior in all 4 categories, shouldn't that be a 10-8 round?
Not all criteria are created equal. 'Ring generalship' in itself is highly problematic. It's hard to separate it from clean punching. If you are getting hit more times than your opponent then that is evidence that you are a poor ring general. Effective aggressiveness as well. The 'effective' part of 'effective aggressiveness' should be accounted for by clean punches landed.
I don't think the criteria is the real problem with scoring in boxing, it's the method -10 points must system- wich is unfair and the judges who clearly aren't always impartial. Because how can it be that a round in wich one boxer is punched from pilar to post, is scored the exact same way as a round in wich you can hardly seperate them but one boxer maybe looks slightly better as his opponent? Too easy for a judge to score it the wrong way if he wants one fighter to win. Just score every close round for that guy and voila.
