New Jersey used this for a long time, into the 1980s I think, and I had a question about it. (It may also have been used in New York but I can’t recall — NY definitely used the round system, not sure about supplemental points.) First, for those who do not know this system: First, every round is scored for either Fighter A, Fighter B or even Judges also scored each round on the 5-point must system (in Jersey): 5 points for the winner, 4 or less for the loser, 5-5 if even. In the event of a draw in rounds, they would go to points to determine the winner. So I had some questions I hope someone here can answer: 1) Did they go to points only if the FIGHT was a draw in rounds (one judge scored Fighter A as the winner, scored fighter B and the other one even), or did they go to the points for one judge if he scored the fight even? (Obviously if it was even — say every judge when 5-5 in rounds in a 10-rounder — they go to points to determine the winner, but I’m asking about other scenarios; see below). For instance, if judges 1 and 2 scored for Fighter A and judge 3 scored it even in rounds but gave the edge to Fighter A on points, is it unanimous or a majority decision? Same scenario but judge 3 scored it for Fighter B in points, would it be a split decision or majority? 2) How did this work with deductions for penalties? If Fighter A is penalized in the first round for a low blow but wins the round otherwise, is that round scored for Fighter A, Fighter B (the penalty being the round is taken from Fighter A) or even (Fighter A won the round but the penalty would make it more like a 4-4 round, on the scorecard)? Or was the penalty only applied to points thus would only come into play if the fight was a draw in rounds at at the end — so Fighter A in the above scenario would win the first round but the one-point penalty would make it 4-4 if it lasted went to points (Jersey used the )? Because it seems to me that unless the round is taken away from the guy who was penalized that a fighter would have every reason to foul because as long as he won the round in which he did it there’s basically no penalty except in the smaller number of cases where the fight would end in a draw on rounds. So what disincentive was there for a guy not to throw low blows, rabbit punches, etc? 3) Can you think of any fights where the round system resulted in a just (by the system of scoring employed) decision where the ‘wrong’ guy won? For instance Fighter A wins 6 rounds on every card, Fighter B wins 4 but he scored knockdowns in every round he won but wasn’t knocked down himself — Fighter A would obviously win a decision justly by winning the most rounds but most observers would agree that with all the knockdowns Fighter B deserved to win. Gerrie Coetzee-Renaldo Snipes comes to mind — Snipes was knocked down twice but lost a split decision on the round system (fought in Tarrytown, N.Y., on the round system; not sure if there was a supplemental point system) — as a disputed verdict in a fight scored on the round system .. but what about one where supplemental points come into play? If anyone knows this system, please share that knowledge.
It was a prevalent scoring method. I’d Ike to know more about how it worked — there are plenty of historic fights that were scored this way and some of them may have had a different verdict if the 10-point must system had been in place. I’m curious.
There was a strange twist to the first Louis-Walcott fight, which was that one judge had Louis winning on rounds but Walcott winning on points. This apparently meant that the judge had discretion to award the win to either man - he just scrawled the name on the back of his card. http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...flOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6U4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3596,5770733
Pat, as far as I have been able to glean over the years on this rounds system used in NY and NJ - which was a very flawed system I might add - was supplemental points were only used in the case of a judge having an even card. Once the supplemental points were added, that was the official card. So if the 2 other judges vote for fighter A, and judge 3 votes a draw, once the points are totaled it either becomes a unanimous decision if he votes fighter A or a split if he goes fighter B. Occasionally he also has it even on supplemental points as well, thus his card stays even. Point deductions get really crazy because they used to simply take the round from the offender and give it to the recipient of the foul. However, I would often read "however, he had lost the round anyway..." which tells me it was for the singular round the infraction appeared in. If the offender had lost the round on points then nothing further would be deducted if he was penalized for a low blow. a ridiculous system. Another fight besides Coetzee-Snipes where the scorer of knockdowns got shafted would be the first fight between Wifred Benitez and Bruce Curry. I had Benitez the winner on points like 5-4-1, but if it was on the 10 point system, my card would have been for Curry.
If boxing had excellent judges ( They don't ) I'd be okay with this 10-10 even round 10-9 one fighter is better but not by a big margin 10-8 A really big round without a knockdown, or a round with a knockdown 10-7 Two knockdowns
But like if you even need supplements to help you score a fight you should NOT be working as a judge. LIke, take all the ginkabilobo yall want but retire! That hole industry crazy unregulated 2.
No the supplements are to distinguish between what we could call 10-9 and 10-8 rounds. Scoring on the rounds system, I could edge six rounds in a 10-round fight and you could win four and knock me down twice each in those four rounds and I win. It has nothing to do with the competency of the judge. It’s the system, which would treat a three-knockdown round the same as one in which a fighter edged the other by a few punches.
I hear you but to me it's almost like juicing cuz u can't hit a ball hard enuff without like an epo or something. So its like if they need a zinc and coq10 with every meal to see weather not a dude get kd'd 3x then they shouldnt even get licensed. I'm not sayin they bad dudes or anything if it's just part of the rules and its allowed but then the system is crazy, pat. Anyways, b cool, brotha. peace.
I followed the thread but nobody ever even figured out which supplements the guys were taking or how it affectated they scoring? Been a long times and nobody answer.
Maybe just coffee back in the day for the slow fights. Red Bull or something similar now. We know that certain drugs, marijuana and LSD for example, enhance the experience for some when listening to music or watching movies. Maybe we'd see more accurate scores when judging fights while under the influence of a substance that enhances perception. In all seriousness, Saintpat has brought up some interesting questions. I've been aware of the supplemental points system and basically how it works for decades, but I've never taken into consideration the questions you've asked. I like Mendoza's suggestions regarding spreading out the scores a little more.
Mr. Saintpat, Thanks for asking this question about the scoring system. I've thought up the exact same questions and scenarios myself.
