Hopkins vs Taylor 1: Perfect example for why the 10-point must system doesn't work

Yep, just what I was thinking.

10-10 for an even round
10-9 to the guy who just about edged it
10-8 to the guy who clearly won the round
10-7 for a knock down

 

Well, B Hop basically pissed the early rounds away. He kicked the **** out of Taylor late on, but the reality is hat he knew the rules and failed to fight by them. Why should we change the rules for a fighter who doesn't apply himself for the whole 12?

It was Bernard's own idiotic strategy based on his age and weight drain.

 

Its not the system but the judges that are biggest problem, sometimes before a fight even starts, they decided who they are going to score the fight for, a fan favorite has a HUGE advantage over any unknown fighter they fight.

 

i dont think the system is bad


like others have said, it;s the judges

(and fwiw, i think "work rate" is highly overrated)

 

But this highlights the potential problems with any new scoring system!
If you go with more 10-8 rounds than you will have so much more controversies. I kinda agree with Reppin...I know it is just an example but neither fighter hurt the other enough. Your two 10-10 rounds are suspect. Hopkins knew the rules and decided to coast early = his fault. We should not fault the scoring rules for this.

And we don't just count punches landed. It has the most weight, for sure ... but there are other factors.

The rules are simple and for a reason. Win the round and get a 10-9. We want less subjectivity in scoring...not more.

In a system that hands out more 10-8's
1/ Imagine handing out a 10-8 in one night watching Taylor Hopkins and then the next night watching Bowe Holyfield. its all reletive the fight in question.
2/ It would be tough to score the proceeding rounds the same after a boring feeling out round as opposed to a back-and-forth exciting round.
3/ You would have judges that are known for handing out easy 10-8 rounds and other that are more stringent. This would be turn into a pre-fight negotiating hurdle with promoters having favourite judges based on thier particular fighters strengths and weaknesses.
4/ Fighters that can't punch would be at a distinct disadvantage. Pure boxers would suffer.

 

How about having more judges,

sounds ridiculous but with about 10 judges 1 or 2 bonkers scorecards wouldn't make the difference in the outcome, also the more judges there are the harder it would be to bribe all of them. I think this way the number of robberys would be greatly reduced.

 

now the question is asked every round what constitutes edging a round (2 points) and what is dominating a round (3 points).
but I know what you are saying. It doesn't seem right when won guy clearly won 5 rounds, and there were 7 other very closer rounds the other guy may have won. Changing the scoring may change the way fighters fight too, because instead of flurrying at the end to do just enough to win a round, or coasting for the same effect, some fighters will try to get that extra point for a "dominant" round, and other fighters will try not to lose that extra point.

I had this idea that each round is worth 100 points. So a twelve round fight is always worth 1,200 points

Each round you ask yourself who dominated and how much? Was it 50/50 than score it that way. Did one guy edge the round? Then you got 55/45.

Dominant round? How much? 60/40? 70/30? 80/20? Knockdowns are factored in here.

If one guy got knocked down three times, and ran in terror getting mauled ad never threw a punch back, well there is your 100 / 0 round.

Point deductions would be more frequent. But less penalty. That is one option. 5 points off for second warning. 10 for third. 20 for 4th etc....or another option would be to take 20 points off. A clear round would generally be 60/40 so that makes sense.

I like that when one fighter is just chickenshitting away the entire round you can send them down the river on the scorecards. If they didn't do anything the whole round than that gets reflected on the cards.

I know there would be so much subjectivity but it can't possibly be worse that what we have now. They ought to try it.

 

You brought up how the current system doesn't necessarily distinguish how much effective output was necessary to win a round. While your proposed system does seem to make some improvements, the issue remains. Suppose in one round, both fighters are engaged in an absolute war with high output and many punches landed by both fighters. It is a close round but Fighter A takes the 2 pts. The next round Fighter A fails to throw any punches due to an injury and his opponent throws and lands just five crisp punches. This would seem to be a pretty clear 3 pt round for Fighter B. How does this system distinguish how much more work went into losing the first round, and the 0 pts awarded to Fighter B, versus the 3 pts he earned in the next round?

I also suspect that with the points assigned in the fashion you've described, a bout could get away from a fighter very quickly because of how big the point spread becomes since a lost round earns 0 points.

 

that's crazy.

 

Main problem is the current convention of almost never scoring even rounds.

That means a judge is forced to find a reason to pick a winner in rounds where neither fighter has done much of any quality. And that round gets the same score as a round where one fighter consistently outboxes the other.

Froch v Dirrell was a good example. If I score it using current convention, I score Froch as the winner. If I score giving rounds even where I don't think either fighter really made a case to win the round (and there were a few), I score Dirrell as the winner.

 

She is Godly. Thank you for bringing her to my attention.

 

It's kinda weird, but how about..

10 point must system: No 10-10 scores, ever.

10-9.5 : barely edged the other guy
10-9 : clearly winning the round
10-8 : KD1
10-7 : KD2
10-6 : KD3

And add a 13th round, to minimise chances of draw decisions.


Yeah, it looks wonky, but it's probably more accurate. Plus it doesnt mess with the 10-8 score for a KD.