How to score rounds

BLOCKED PUNCHES ARE NOT SCORING PUNCHES

 

Who’s face is most ****ed up at the end?

 

The problem remains, whether you "know how to score a fight" or whether you "DKSAB" ..... some rounds are genuinely very close.
There could be a fight where several rounds are extremely close but the judge gives them all to the same man, and then the final score doesn't at all represent how close it was.

I believe in scoring even rounds. But most people hate that.

 

It was a close fight and judges have to score it watching very close to the ring. I understand why they give it to Beterbiev. Agression and ring generalship will win you a fight, if other boxer is not so active at the end.

 

You gave Bivol rounds 10 and 12 but all 3 judges gave Beterbiev the last 3 rounds and most members here agree that Beterbiev won a majority of the later rounds.

So I'm not seeing how you have Bivol winning 2 out of the last 3 rounds.

 

Im working on an iOS app that could go some way towards helping fans explain why they scored a round they did.

The conversation around last nights fight seems stuck on the clean vs effective debate. Which is valid. But kind of a dead end, if you have no way of quantifying the weight you give to each category.

That wouldn’t be the case if there was a way of quickly assigning a value to each moment in a fight with gestures, and then with timestamps, being able to compare your assessment with others. That’s what I'm trying to build.

 

Great post OP!

I'd probably say I'm as neutral as it gets in terms of wanting to see someone push the fight, vs someone adopt a more measure 'hit and not get hit' approach, as I like seeing both executed well - but it can be hard at times to separate those things in a 3 minute round.

However, if someone doesn't like seeing a 'runner' ( for the record I don't think Bivol was a runner last night apart from a few spurts here and there), then they are going to be predisposed to the aggressor and if the clean punching of the defensive fighter is not clearly enough to sway the round then it won't sway it and that's where things get tricky.

Last night we saw a few different kinds of rounds:-

• The defensive fighter clearly scored the better shots, executed their plan, and the aggressive fighter did very little (1,2,9)
• The aggressive fighter clearly dictated the pace, distance, having the defensive fighter shelled up and most of their output nullified (5,6,10,11)
• The aggresive fighter closed the round strongly in the last 30-45 seconds, upping their workrate and possibly swaying the judges view, although the defensive fighter arguably had more success for the rest of the round (3,7,8)
• The defensive fighter closed the round strongly with clean counters offsetting the less impactful work of the aggressor (12)
• The round was very balanced with ebb and flow with both fighters having their own success (4)

This variation form round to round really makes it very hard to score - and although I'd have though that the 1st 2 kinds of rounds are easy to identify, it does not seem to be the case - I've seen folks give Bivol 6 & 10, and some folks give Beterbiev 9 (which is hard to fathom!)

What I always try to do, is alternate swing rounds, between each fighter, but if their are odd swing rounds that does not always work.

For reference I had Bivol with 1-3, 7-9
and Beterbiev with 4-6 and 10-12

 

I completely agree. Below is a post I just made in the British forum in reply to someone who made the exact same point as you:


Totally agree.

The notion that if a fight is close then the scorecards have to reflect it and also be close is nonsense. Yes, the scorecards often do, but they don't necessarily have to.

The scorecards should be as a close or wide as there are tight rounds i.e. if fighter A conclusively wins 6 rounds and fighter B conclusively wins the other 6, 114 - 114 is the only correct score. If all rounds are close and difficult to score, any score is legit (120 - 108 to fighter A or 120 - 108 to fighter B, or any score in between, including a draw). Obviously, this is if no corruption or incompetence on the judges part takes place.

It truly baffles me when people say, "There were loads of close and difficult to score rounds, but 116 - 112 is too wide". Utter bollocks.

 

Shouldn't the judges be ex-fighters who actually know both how punches and ringwork works.

On the Arms / Gloves don't score yet we are seeing this too often.

Thoughts?

 

Also, really REALLY annoys me that tight rounds are given to the Home Fighter.

Tight rounds should be a 10-10.

The scoring procedure is long overdue a revampt.

Maybe after R3, R6, R9 the scores should be visibly available to all, both attending and watching on TV.

 

He did explain that he favoured clean punching above all else, and Bivol did have eye-catching shots in 10, and especially 12 (the last 45 seconds mostly)

I think this is a great example that shows that how different people weigh the criteria in relative terms can change things - my perception in round 12 was that Bivol's rally was not enough to win the round, but others obviously differ. Kind of similar to how I feel Bivol bossed maybe 2.15 of round 3, but Beterbiev finished it strongly - but not strongly enough to take the round for me, yet I see many folks scoring 3 for Artur

 

Very good post. Although, I don't agree with the alternating swing rounds bit. Every round should be scored based on what happened in those 3 minutes. Nothing that came before should affect your decision. Obviously, this can be easier said than done. I think bringing back 10-10 scoring for extremely close rounds would be a good idea. To the best of my knowledge, 10-10 rounds aren't banned, they just seem to be out of vogue with judges, particularly American judges.

As to your earlier points on aggressor Vs back foot fighter, I agree with a lot of your points and I think you have the right mindset. Unfortunately, some people believe that entertainment can and should come into scoring so they will often unfairly penalise the back foot fighter.