Scoring methodology

It's about trying to produce the most accurate score possible by trying to balance out the scoring of rounds with what actually happened in the ring. That could involve scoring rounds even, or splitting close rounds. It's important to have a sense of how close and competitive the rounds are as you are deciding how to score a round. And in some cases, remembering how you scored previous close rounds when scoring other close rounds.

 

This.

For some bizarre reason judges are urged NOT to score rounds 10-10. If this unwritten rule didn't exist, it would likely solve most of the problems with judging. Rounds that are too close to call should be 10-10. Giving such rounds to one boxer over the other is the result of bias. We need to eliminate this bias.

 

This is pretty much the way I look at scoring fishts such as Haney v Loma. I have zero experience on judging rounds btw. Most of those rounds were so close. Loma had a couple of standout rounds. I've heard it said that fighters should close the round strong to make an impression. Calling split rounds would definitely make those overwhelming rounds to be standout events. If it's been tight all through the rounds then each knows that they need to make a statement.

 

You would need a super computer to differentiate and calculate all the punches in a split seconds time. If we are willing to go that far , use specialized suits with pressure sensors that only cover legal shots. That way you can see who's landing the heavier shots and who's land more. Then you would be back here posting that the
Harder shots should be worth more because a fighter you like landed fewer punches but landed the harder shots.
LOL

 

That’ is absolutely not how it should be done, nor how the system is set up for it to be done.

Each round is an entity unto itself. If one guy edges every round, no matter how close, he wins those rounds. You don’t say ‘well I thought Fighter A edged it and it was razor close, so I’m giving it to Fighter B even though I didn’t think he won it because I gave another close round to Fighter A.’

A judge is (rightfully) tasked with choosing a winner for each round based on the four points of scoring. If there’s nothing to separate the fighters, it’s even. Otherwise, someone wins the round and someone loses it.

The FAIR thing is to award the round to the guy who won it — no matter how close. Not to give it to the guy who didn’t because he lost other close rounds, lol.

 

Yeah they used to do it that way and we had 15-round title fights where a judge scored it 3-2-10 (with 10 even) and there was an outcry that the job of judges is to choose a winner in rounds and not to sit back and say ‘well that was close’ all night.

No matter how you do it, people ***** if their guy doesn’t win.

 

What a trash unnuanced opinion that doesn't even touch upon the main points the OP has outlined. Basic

 

here’s the problem with that:

away fighter narrowly outboxes the promoter’s boy for 3 minutes
judges: hmmm, that was close, let’s give it a 10-10

the promoter’s boy narrowly outboxes the away fighter for 3 minutes
judges: yep, that’s a 10-9

 

I touched on OP’s points.

OP’s point is he didn’t like the outcome of the fight, so let’s change the scoring so his guy won.

Hey, let’s give LeBron a point for near misses because I want the Lakers to win. Let’s do away with offsides in soccer so my team’s goal counts. Let’s decide the Super Bowl by time of possession if my team has the ball longer instead of counting points.

 

If Fighter A wins the first 3 rounds in clear dominant fashion, but then Fighter B wins the next 3 rounds by a hair, then you end up with an even scorecard after 6 rounds, which is not accurate. In reality, Fighter A should be winning, because of how dominant the rounds he won were.

By the "each round is an entity unto itself" logic, we end up with Ward beating Kovalev on the cards despite being knocked down and getting dominanted in the rounds he lost because he eeked out 7 rounds and most fans call it a robbery. So if you want to increase the accuracy of judges scorecards, you need to do something to make your scorecard more accurate. In close rounds, there are plenty of reasons to score the round for either fighter. It's up to you to identify a good reasons to give a fighter a round or to decide to score it even. And when you score a round even, that's still only 1/2 of the point swing than if you give someone a close round that could go either way.

The concept of splitting close rounds is advanced judging, and it's not something that is easy to do. It's a lot easier to do when reviewing scoring after fact than it is when scoring it live. But it can be done while judging live. In the example I gave of Fighter A winning the first 3 rounds in clear dominant fashion, then the next 3 rounds being closely competitive, in situations like that, there could be reasons to score one of those rounds even or to score it for Fighter A. And remember, choosing who wins any round is subjective. It's not as if the decision has already been made that Fighter B has definitively won the next 3 rounds, that decision is still under review. And part of the decision process is to consider the closeness of the rounds. You recognize that the first 3 rounds were clear, and that the next 3 rounds weren't. So knowing that, any judge or fan judging who wants to create the most accurate score possible, should avoid giving Fighter B 3 close rounds in a row, if there are reasons to score them for Fighter A. If Fighter A is doing something that Fighter B isn't doing, like making him miss, landing body shots, landing big shots. Lets say after 3 rounds, Fighter B simply started to throw more punches. A lot of fans would just score him close rounds because his arms are moving more. No, you need to study what is happening throughout the round and make a smart, reasonable decision as to how to score it.

 

Right, and you could just as easily score the 10-10 round 9-10 then the 10-9 round 10-10 and you have a 1 point swing there while being able to justify it either way. That's why the concept of splitting close rounds is important, because that ensures a proper balancing of hard to score rounds that avoids the random 1 point swings of trying to decide which is a 10-10 round and which isn't. Scoring a round 10-10 (ideally) makes more sense when it's the only close round of the fight up to that point, or if you've established that there's an odd number of close hard to score rounds, that you've already split.

That's not to say you can't score a round even at any time. Sometimes you get a cautious, low output Round 1 and fans will score it 10-10. And if you do that, then you don't have to worry about balancing out that with another close round if you decided to score it for someone 10-9 if you weren't sure. Good scorers put a lot of thought into how they score, the goal is to create the most accurate score possible within the guidelines (i.e. whole numbers).

 

Ever played the Victorious Boxers games on PS2? Ever get to a decision? You'll notice that almost every round is 10-10. You have to literally pummel your opponent over and over to get a 10-9. While that is an extreme throwback to the old days, and also due to the clock running at double speed, and the game speed being too fast, it is a reminder that the threshold on what it takes to actually win a round 10-9 is very open to interpretation.

 

Some people here really missed their time and place.

They would have loved 1960s/70s Argentina, where the judging philosophy was to call any fight that wasn’t a KO or an absolute shellacking a draw.

That’s why Carlos Monzon, arguably the best middleweight in history, has nine draws on his record.

 

In boxing, a round is a unit unto itself. It isn’t compared to other rounds in the same fight for margin.

Fighter A wins the first three rounds decisively, on the 10-point must he’s up 30-27. Fighter B rallies to win the next three by a hair, it’s 27-27 … because each has won three rounds.

Counting the rounds the same is no different than counting goals in soccer the same — you don’t get two points for a difficult goal or a spectacular shot. In basketball there are 2-point baskets and 3-point baskets for longer shots from a certain distance … but you don’t get four points for half court and 10 points for heaving the ball into the basket from the far end. You get two or you get three.

You either scored a goal or you didn’t. You either scored a basket or you didn’t. You either won the round or you didn’t.

I know you want the rules to be different so your guy wins, but the rules have been standard for a long time. There’s nothing wrong with the 10-point must system. You just don’t like this result.

You are grieving because your guy lost. You are halfway through the process. You’ll get there.

The five stages of grief:

1) Denial — Loma didn’t lose!!!

2) Anger — LOMA DIDN’T LOSE!!! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!! NO MORE FIGHTS IN VEGAS. NO MORE AMERICAN JUDGES. APPEAL THE DECISION AND OVERTURN IT OR WE RIOT!!!

3) Bargaining — We need to change the way fights are scored so my guy wins. If we just give more weight to the rounds he won then we’ll get the decision I want and I’ll be happy. So let’s simply change the way boxing has been scored for decades so my guy wins. (This is where you’re at.)

4) Depression — This will be tough, but you’ll get through it. Some Loma fans are already here. The biggest tell is when they post host they’re done with boxing.

5) Acceptance — It took a while for a lot of Loma fans to get to this point in the Teo fight but they shifted to ‘well he was hurt and had surgery, so he’s got an excuse and I’ll now admit he lost.’ Upon rewatch a lot of people seem to be seeing that there’s a very good case to be made for Haney. It’s a tough road, but you’ll get there.