Scoring is only minutely subjective.

To me, if a round is not clear, 10-10. I don't mind two or three even rounds in a fight, because I can't justify giving another fighter an extra point just because I don't want to look indecisive. If someone hasn't "won the round", they don't get an extra point.

 

The only way to put integrity back into scoring and give boxers a fair chance at knowing where they stand is open scoring.

Boxing is one of the only sporst where you do not know the score of what you're doing at any point in time.

 

Alas, however much we want it NOT to be the case, anything that calls for judgment is always subjective to some degree.

Boxing judges break the activity down into components, just as you outlined, and just as Harold never tires of explaining to his viewers. But there is the question of how to weight the different factors. And that will always be subjective.

If a boxer is the aggressor, landing 25 or 30 decent shots against 5 or 6 from his retreating opponent during the first 2:45 of a round, but then catches a hard flush punch that buckles his legs and makes him clinch for the last 10 seconds without a KD, who gets the round?

The fact that very experienced judges hand down decisions that are at odds with each other, as well as with some fans,. indicates that this is not an exact science.
I scored both PAC-JMM fights for Pac. I had a lot of rounds close especially in the second fight. I wouldn't have quarreled with a draw or a narrow JMM victory.

Same with both BHop-Taylor fights.

I scored Calzaghe 9-3 over Bernard, but I could live with 10-2 or 8-4.
Yet, one judge had it 6-6. Clearly, we used different criteria or she saw a different fight.

Occassionally, there are genuine robberies (Lewis-Holyfield (i), Oscar-Tito, Demetrius Hopkins-Steve Forbes, etc) and they generate a lot of outrage.

Oscar has recently stated that he probably lost to SFelix Sturm.

If a fight is very close, a fighter shouldn't be surprised if his perceived margin of victory is eclipsed by the margin of subjectivity of the judges.


We could go back to the days of fighting until one fighter was unable or unwilling to continue. We could even go back to 15 rounds.

Both solutions would draw some howls of concern.


As Big George used to counsel: Don't leave it in the hands of the judges.

 

I agree that there was "a close but clear winner": Pac!

Would I have called a JMM win a "robbery" though? No. The fight was just that close, and I think Pac deserved the nod (an extra pt. for that kd didn't hurt either).

I'm not a rabid Pac fan (Filipino), though I love his attitude and style--I was actually rooting for JMM and even had money on him!

As you say, scoring rules aren't really supposed to be THAT open to subjectivity, but there IS a measure of it involved. Sometimes a one round difference in scoring separates a winner from a loser, and I don't think even YOU would say a one round discrepancy is unreasonable.

There are things that could improve the system like (per your other thread) more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds; refs that don't allow holding/running and bringing back 15 rounds would make decisions more decisive.

I think too much credence is given to "defensive wizards" who refuse to engage, and are oftentimes given more credit in rounds (for "ring generalship") than they deserve.

The main thing is who lands more and better punches..absent that it is the more effective aggressor...I find it very difficult to give rounds to guys going backwards/avoiding engagements unless they are able to land good shots while doing so (think Toney-Jirov).

 

You have a point, but this also has the potential to ruin fights too. In a way, I think NOT knowing the score give incentive to fighters to keep fighting.

 

There are just too many competing/self-serving interests in boxing as well as judging/reffing inconsistencies: the various sanctioning bodies, State commissions, promoters, "star" fighters (who fight who they WANT and not always who they SHOULD), deserving contenders who everyone ducks, too many weight classes, indecisive fights, scoring discrepencies (sometimes the aggressor is rewarded, sometimes the runner/grappler), refs w/different styles, biased reffing/judging, different networks, and fights that just end up not being worth the $$$ fans pay to see them; there are out-and-out robberies and many controversial or bad decisions which never get remedied.

Boxing could really take a lesson from UFC in many of these regards.

 

You think the MOST corrupt organization known to mankind (the U.S. govt) is gonna clean up boxing? Don't count on it, and pray it never happens, or prepare for 3 round fights w/headgear and 20 oz. gloves.

I think Congress has more pressing matters to attend to, don't you?

If boxing, its combatants, fans, financial interests can't solve its problems, maybe it SHOULD go out of style. Maybe things have to get worse before they get better. UFC had a ton of problems until savvy businessmen figured out a way to make it work.

 

More crying. I wonder how your self-righteousness will remain intact if one of your "gods" is humbled.