Changes to the present scoring system

I'm the same on the automatic 10-8 thing, that's ****. I reckon losing a point for a knockdown is right, but if a fighter loses the round but gets say a flash knockdown then i'd call it even personally. Also if a fighter gets battered but stays upright, i don't ever score it 10-8, if you show the heart to stay on your feet you deserve your 9 points. That's under the current system anyway, my view.

On your new system proposal Al, i reckon it sounds interesting, but it's very much subjective on how and when you would score the round by a big margin. There'd be a lot of controversy potentially. Make for good debate though when we're all comparing our cards. I've nearly done your fight now but i'll finish it after the match.

Sorry i've took forever mate, just a victim of circumstances, i'm busy as ****, later mate,

 

I did like the old timers way of scoring when the 10 must came into play. They had no qualms scoring a one-sided round 10-8, and a close round 10-9.

Personally I score it 10-9 to a round winner, 10-8 if one fighter is truly dominant. And if there is a knockdown I score the round as I would any other then deduct the point so a fighter could win the round and be knocked down and get an even round.

Personally I would like a rounds system back.

 

I would definitely be in favor of opening up the regulations a bit, scoring a close round 10-9, a big round 10-8, and letting judges apply their own discretion about knockdowns. (For example, if Fighter A is slightly up in the round and does a flash knockdown on Fighter B, it's okay to score it 10-9. If Fighter A is kicking Fighter B's ass but suddenly gets hit for a balance knockdown, they can still win the round or have to be scored a draw, etc).

The only problem I see with that is that it adds a lot more subjectiveness into things, and added room for bad/corrupt judges to justify their scores. We need a better class of judges before altering the scoring, in my opinion.

 

But something like JMM vs Pacquiao I.

If that was a rounds system JMM would have won it, and he should have won that fight anyway IMO (but thats a different matter). I think a man who is better than his opponent in more rounds deserves to win, if it is a close fight, then it should be taken into account how domiannt the rounds were.

 

But that is the rule, isnt it!

If a fighter is winning a round and gets Knocked down it is a 10-10 round. Actually i always thought it was a 9-9 but that sounds a bit strange in a 10 point must system. Though it can happen with a point deduction. And 10-8 rounds happen without knockouts even 10-7 with one knockdown, from time to time. I am sure that it was Leonard Hearns II or one of those type of fights where the 10-8 round was the difference and ended up causing a lot of controversy.

I find it surprising, with all the judging controversies, that so many are calling for judges to have more discretion!

I am not sure what changes if any i would like to make. If tweaking the system, probably i would like to see the value of a knockdown increased to 2 or maybe 3 points deduction. After all, this is the name of the game and is usually where most controversial fights come from, if one fighter gets more knock downs but loses the fights. Also, perhaps a grade of knockdown. Eg flash knockdown, a loss of one point, but a solid knockdown more. Maybe even grade it on the number of seconds on the canvas. I also wouldnt mind seeing judges scores released at the end of each round. I think it makes it more exciting and less chance of controversy. Also, i think it would help the commentators score properly and there would be less chance of a mistake because of their errors, which is what commonly causes controversy. Maybe the last round could or should be worth double points?

I am not sure whether there is a wholesale change to the system that would work. A variation of the amateur system with big punches and knockouts scoring extra points might work, but i dont really think so. Perhaps Judges could rank out of 10 on several criteria, but again, i dont think it would work.

 

Score more on clean, accurate, effective punching rather than on aggression.

Get that right, then talk more about other changes - because it's getting beyond a joke with this ****, especially in the UK.

Why bother learning to make your opponent miss and to counter him, when you can walk forward with your chin down and just windmill all night - and get the decision?

 

You're right, that's what it is, and i don't like it, like most of us don't like it.

 

If we're going to change the way we score fights (and we should), I think we have to throw out the whole "must" idea. Instead, let's award the winner of a round anywhere between 1 and 5 points and the loser anywhere between 0 and 4, depending on their efforts.

Examples:
If it's a close round in an average fight, 3-2 round.
If the loser isn't putting any effort in at all, 3-0.
If the winner scores a knockdown over the loser in the previous example, 4-0.
If it's a close round and both guys are putting in great efforts, 5-4.
If one guy looks great and is outclassing someone who nonetheless is really trying, 4-2.
If it's a snoozer and one guy is narrowly winning, 2-1.
If it's a snoozer and both guys are really not trying, but one is trying a little bit more, 1-0.
If one fighter is putting in a superhuman performance and the other guy keeps getting knocked down but keeps getting up, a la Dempsey-Willard round 1 or Ali-Williams round 1, it might be scored 5-1 or 5-2, depending on what the scorer thought of the loser's effort.

Using a system like this you can look at the scores and judge the quality of the fight. If it's a 10-rounder and the loser scores 0, you can tell he (or she) didn't put in much effort.

If it's a 15-rounder (I can dream, can't I?) and the final score is 68-67, you'd know it was a damn good fight. The winner won 8 rounds by 5-4, the loser won 7 by 5-4. Just looking at the high number of 5's and 4's awarded, you'd know it was good.

Conversely, if a 15-rounder is scored 43-18, you'd know the fight was neither close nor very exciting.

Thoughts?

 

But it rewards bravery, and perhaps a lack of skills, over actual skills and ability.