Lets say... Fighter A wins 6 rounds. Fighter B wins 6 rounds. However, fighter A blows out fighter B almost to the point of 6, 10-8 rounds but not quite. 6 rounds 10-9. Now, fighter B's 6 rounds were very, very close, yet all 3 judges barely gave him the nod by 1 point. 6 rounds 10-9. Is it just me that thinks a draw would be ****ed up? I mean, the scorecards would be even but fighter A would be getting screwed. No?:huh
Debate the size of your balls with your boyfriend punk. This is a hypothetical question that has happened in the past. So you have never seen a guy dominate 6 rounds of a fight only to see his opponent win 6 close rounds? I guess you havn't seen too many fights, probably too busy giving your man a foot massage.
Yeah, the scoring system needs to be revised. The popular theme would be to have those wide rounds scored 10-8 with a knockdown worth 10-7, while the close rounds are scored 10-9.
Fighter A obviously burnt himself out and should have saved something for the last half, so he got what he deserved. You could argue fighter B had noted his lack of conditioning and was letting him get tired.
The 10-point must system is so fvcked up really, i don't believe in it myself. It desperately needs to be given a second look, though i don't see it coming anytime soon.
Sorta like the first Taylor-Hopkins fight, or the first Jones Jr.-Tarver fight. In my mind I think "Hopkins and Tarver definitely beat up their opponents worse than their opponents beat them up. If this was a streetfight, everyone would have said that they won." My scorecards told me something different though.
No it's not. It is an excellent question. Consider Chavez and Whitaker. I believe Whitaker won the fight, and even those who scored it a draw admit that Whitaker won the rounds he won by much larger margins. However, because no knockdowns occurred, nor were there any moments where Chavez was in trouble, they couldn't give Whitaker any 10-8 rounds. A fight is scored round by round. It is very likely that six rounds by fighter A were more impressive but the fight is a draw because of how rounds are scored and the other boxer won six rounds, too. Here's a solution (and they used to do this): supplementary scoring. At the end of a fight, judges who called it a draw are instructed to award points for overall dominance unless the fight is clearly a draw (there are draws). This can also benefit a boxer who dominates a fight but is held to a draw because he suffered a few flash knockdowns. You can have a boxer win only a couple of rounds, but because he won them on knockdowns, he can draw or even win a fight. This is unfair when the other boxer put on an otherwise sweet performance.
It's not a bad idea in a perfect world. The problem is, with the corruption in boxing, "supplementary scoring" could prove absolutely disastrous.
i know what your saying here man. like the BHop vs Taylor fight. taylor maybe won more rounds but most people feel that hopkins beat him up way worse. sadly this won't chnage, you have to win the rounds or knock his ass out.
Scoring is too tight, I did never seen any scoring below 10:7, usually its ends the fight which is ridiculous. Almost each round ends with 10:9 or 10:8 after KD. With this system the scoring of 3 should be efficient, like 3:2 or 3:1 or 3:0. Why there is 10 points if nobody deducts points below 7? Each KD should deduct 2 points, if someone stay at floor for more than 5 counts this should qualify for 3 point deduction, the guy leaning on ropes for some time should have deducted point, a touch of the floor even if no Kd should be deducted with 1 point, each 5 holdings should be punished with one point. What do you guys think about that?
Yes, the 10 point must system is flawed. It's what we got though. If we're talking scoring ideals, I feel that judges should not assign KD's any value. They ought to be nothing more than a moral triumph for the standing party, and the only correlation they should ever have to fight outcome is failure of the felled party to beat the ten count resulting in a KO. :good Definitions of fouls and their deductions are also far too subjective and should be standardized into a rigid warning and penalization system and enforced with the aid of instant replay.
