Future of scoring: The Cortez 20/20 System

that aint such a bad idea

 

Why not give the judges the best view, which would be watching it on monitors.

 

High level boxers can make all kinds of demands, so it's ultimately up to them to make this happen. Hopefully, someone like a Mayweather hears this idea and takes it up. The boxing bureaucracy is corrupt, cheap, and slow as hell when it comes to making improvements to the game.

This new system that makes it clearer for judges to see what actually lands helps boxers who focus on precision, defense, and have conservative workrates.

I would be against this if I was the volume punching type who tries to steal rounds with lil bull**** flurries.

This new system can also tackle an overlooked problem in boxing scoring. Defense is one of the criterion boxers should get points for, but it's often disregarded in favor of the bull**** ideology of judges tend to score for what you throw. Volume isn't even one of the scoring criterion.atsch

 

This. I dont see why showing the fight on a monitor in front of them wont work as well. It would even be a lot easier to implement. Either way I support either idea way better than the current way it is. **** the new name though.

 

having been to my fair share of fights live, I think that on TV there's a huge element missing. You get a far better feel for the effect that each punch has live rather than on TV.

however i like Cortez' elevated viewpoint idea, but will it hinder the view of those in the stands?

 

The cameras alone can block the view, so judges would be a massive blot. But it is a great idea and would definitely work. If they're all on one side there'd only be one section of cheap seats.

 

Great idea.

I approve and have wondered this aloud many times.

 

I'd imagine it's called 20/20 because of it's about vision

 

Sounds like a good idea.. Probably be hell to implement though. As Leon said, it would probably take top level boxers to get it started.. Hopefully some hear about this and find it interesting as well.

 

i think they should sample it

maybe the next few HBO or SHO events plus the next big PPV they should have the regular system and a sample of what Cortez wants

Let the current system be official and have Cortez's officials be like a comparison

if its way different then they can consider it

I think judges should sit in a booth with no crowd noise just a screen alone and judge like that

might work who knows

 

You can't block the view of the most expensive seats! Never going to fly...its all about the $$$ first.
Perhaps the judges should be seated in the crowd, 10 rows up?

 

I don't see the need for judges to have a higher vantage point when CC cameras could suffice.

I think judges should be away from the ring and relaying solely on expensive mono-diectional mices pointed in the ring and closed circuit judging cameras.

 

There was an interesting article on The Ring web shite on this today:

[url]http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/175005-commentary-fractional-scoring-not-the-answer-theres-a-better-way[/url]

In summary the WBA want to further complicate the scoring system by bringing in half points. The writer on the article, Lee Groves, suggest a much more simplified system of scoring:

* In a round that features no knockdowns or point penalties, the fighter who wins the round will be awarded one point while the losing fighter receives zero.

* If a fighter wins the round and scores one knockdown he will earn a 2-0 score (one point for winning the round and a bonus point for the knockdown).

* If a fighter wins the round and scores two knockdowns, he will be awarded a 3-0 score (one point for winning the round and a bonus point for each of the knockdowns).

* If the round is even, the score line will read 0-0.

* The winner will be the fighter with the most aggregate points at the end of the bout.

Here are guidelines covering more complex situations:

* This is the one departure from the California system: If a fighter is penalized during a round, points will be added to the other fighter's score, not subtracted from the offending fighter's (the California system deducted points from the affected fighter). For example, if one fighter wins the round but is penalized one point for any reason the score line should read 1-1.

* If Fighter A wins the round and scores a knockdown but is penalized one point, let's say for hitting Fighter B when he was down, that round will be scored 2-1 for Fighter A instead of the customary 2-0.

* If a fighter is penalized two points – as Gerry Cooney was in round nine for his low blow against Larry Holmes – then the score would read 3-0 for Holmes if the judges felt "The Easton Assassin" won the rest of the round (one point for Holmes for winning the round, then two more points for the penalties) or 2-1 for Holmes if they felt Cooney won the rest of the round (1-0 for Cooney for winning the round, then two points for Holmes to reflect the penalty).

* If the fighters exchange knockdowns during the course of a round, it should be considered a 0-0 wash unless the judge believes one fighter merits the point based on the weight of the knockdowns (forceful versus flash) or on whatever else happened beyond the knockdowns.