OK so I have only really got into boxing the last few years and in title fights all I have ever really known is 12 rounds on the 10-point-must system. In this system, with a fight going the distance with no KDs of point deductions the scores will usually be 120-108, 119-109, 118-110,...you get the picture and these add up to 228 in total. However, in old fights I have noticed great differences in these 'totals' e.g. Duran-Leonard I: one judge scored it 148-147 and another scored it 146-144. In Duran-Hagler there were scores of 142-144 and 145-146. Sanchez-Castillo there are scores of 145-141 and 147-144. All these scores are from BoxRec so are they wrong or was there simply a much greater freedom for judges scoring fights in earlier eras because I do not really understand where all the extra points have come from/disappeared to?
I think you'll find that you still get differences in scorecards now, specially when a fight involves fighters from different countries.
But in the ones I gave as examples there is a difference of 5 points in the total points awarded for the fight. If today one judge scored a fight 118-110 and another scored it 113-110 people would wonder what the hell was going on.
That explains a lot, ta:good But as I said a 5-point total difference seems such a lot I presume there was more licence for judges to make up their own scoring methods and criteria