Scoring even rounds?

Nobber:good

 

I think that's cuz they feel they have to give it to someone so they're reluctant to use the 10/10 system. Take round 1 of Froch Dirrell for example. Nothing happened in that round to suggest that there was a clear winner. I'm not saying it was impossible to seperate, but there's not evidence to justify a winner. If you tried to justify it what possible reasons could you give?

Some will give it to Dirrell and some will give it to Froch, suggesting it was too close to really call. If judges were that good, then they would all be seeing the same thing in a close round surely? That moment where one fighter stole the round. If they are forced to choose, they make up reasons.

Now rounds where one fighter clearly wins, e.g. most of Mayweathers rounds against Mosley. There was clear evidence that Floyd won those rounds, except round 2 where there was clear evidence that Mosley won. You could talk to a hundred people and give your reasons, and they would be accepted by all hundred.

I just think that seperating close rounds is like giving a verdict on whether someone is guilty of a crime or not without there being clear cut, hard evidence evidence either way.

 

Well done :good

 

No it's not that simple because landing one more punch is not enough even if everything else is percieved to be equal. One judge might say "fighter B landed 6 punches but fighter A's punches looked harder even though only landed 5". That might not even be true but he can use crappy reasoning like that. On the other hand, it MIGHT be true, but again, people can't always tell, even after multiple views so why choose when you're not 100% sure? It's not like everything is ever gonna be clear cut when you can say with 100% certainty that all other factors besides number of punches landed were equal.

 

You're using 1 very stale uneventful fight inwhich Froch was the aggressor, landed more shots, were more effective shots and dirrell was the defensively sounded fighter who controlled the tempo. Ergo Froch won the fight on grounds that these things were the gist for most rounds. When no punches are landed- 10-10 coz **** all happened. When few punches are thrown and landed who landed the most, what were the better shots, who defended em better and who was the more tactically sound. So many ways to see which fighter deserved the 10-9 its crazy.

The reason you got 3 judges as 1 might see/score a fight different depended on what they look for in a winning round. That dont mean they give it even in a close round that just means they lean on a different discipline when giving rounds. This is fair as the all-round better fighter IN THEORY should win the fight.

The point I made on all 3 judges giving a 10-10 is valid, if as you say there are so many rounds that are too "close to call" then all 3 judges would judge it the same because whatever discipline they edge towards in particular would have been scored even

Flawed but still the best system i guess

 

Under the grounds of scoring a fight yes it is. You're 2nd sentence backed it up because in your quotations you said the fighter landing 5 were harder- thats not everything else being equal. You are also zeroing in that particular point, widen your view when watching the fight, you might learn to score rounds properly.

Case in point the aforementioned 1 10-10 in Williams-Martinez oh and NONE in Froch-Dirrell....

 

This is the problem. Boxing is always gonna be subjective but we need to get keep that down as much as we can. Why should a judge be able to score a round based on what he prefers? What if you have a defensive figter and you have three judges who prefer fighters who throw many punches, even if they don't land many? The defensive fighter would be screwed.

Disciplines, style of fighting should not come into it. Number of punches landed should be rewarded UNLESS the other guy landed less but clearly landed the cleaner punches and hurt his man more than he got hurt himself. That's all the judges should be looking for in a fight. Punches landed and how clean the punches were. Not whether one boxer was the agressor and tried to make a fight, none of that ****.

I'm using that fight as an example because there were so many close rounds. More shots and more effective shots? The dude was landing on thin air, he didn' do **** to Dirrel. Him being the agressor shouldn't count for anything either. The name of the game is to hit and not be hit, regardless of whether you wanna throw 100 punches a round or only 30. Regardless of whether you wanna run or come forward.

 

In America these days walking forward and throwing punches like a spastic seems to get you the nod in a close round.

 

Listen jackass, if you wanna debate then debate but don't get all uppity like an arrogant ***** okay?:yep

If you weren't such an arrogant ****, you would realise my point is that was there any clear evidence that the fighter who landed 5 punches landed the harder ones? If you watched that **** back 10 times would you draw the same conclusion everytime? If you asked a hundred people how many would agree with you? How sure are you? If it's that ****in clear, then bgy all means score it 10/9, if you're just leaning one way slightly but not sure, then give it even. *****.

 

Ive used the wrong wording, maybe not what they look for but they score on what they SEE right? Some judges will be better at seeing defensive styles, some aggression etc which is why you hear of trends in different countries eg as mentioned America having a phase of aggresive fighters getting nods. With having 3 judges the point you are not getting is that they should all be more able to see the little intricacies and skills in that are enough in close rounds to give it 1 way or another. The point I was making about having 3 who see different disciplines means there are a wider range of intricacies with which to judge a round therefore harder to score it even.

As I said, you should stop using that as an example to jusitify your case as not 1 round was scored even

 

and that's the ****in problem. Anyway, we agree to disagree...

 

Lets call Pac-Man and Clottey a draw and have done with it then shall we???? Jesus you must Swiss seeing as how you wanna stay away from 1 side or another. I used no bad language or immaturity that you have, simply referred to the fact that the 1 fight you bring up as your basis for scoring 10-10 rounds HAD NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes if you leaning towards 1 fighter winning the round, you'd have solid reason for it. And yes these judges ought to know what strikes are more effective/'harder' as you put it otherwise it wouldnt be 1 of the things to look for in scoring a round. Therefore my point stands, IF EVERYTHING IS LEVEL 1 PUNCH CAN DECIDE A ROUND. Besides the likelyhood of it all being level is soooooooo rare, 10-10s in the numbers your talking about is absurd

 

When I watched Froch-Dirrell live, I felt Froch had won clearly, Dirrell landing the sharper punches but Froch outworking him.

How wrong I felt when I re-watched it on DVD..........a fight can appear different depending on the circumstances

 

No thats the ****ing system, learn it

 

Thinking of anyone in particular?:think