Should damage be a bigger factor in scoring bouts?

In this scenario, AI would score the fight a draw. Fights are scored by the round, not accumulation of damage.

 

Damage is a bigger factor...............if you knockdown the opponent you get an extra point? If you dominate an opponent for an entire round even without knocking them down...............judges may be inclined to still give you an extra point.

 

To me if the referee doesn’t start counting it’s a 10-9 round no matter how bad the beating.

Because otherwise what is incentive for the guy that receives the beating to try and not go down? He might just as well take a knee and a breather if the round is going to be scored 10-8 anyways.

By giving 10-8 rounds without counting, or 10-7 rounds you give less value to the toughness guy on the receiving end of beating.

 

I always thought this fell in line with effective punching. I have a hard time scoring rounds for a guy only jabbing when the other guy is landing bigger shots.

 

Boxing should be scored on a round to round basis; damage scored within a round should be credited, but shouldn't be credited for the proceeding rounds.

 

It seems to me that back in the old days from past eras that the three judge system basically worked most of the time. Of course there are exceptions to the rule and times when it did not work out, but overall it seemed to work decently up until what I feel has been recent times.

The increase of dubious scorecards within the last 20 to 25 years has been very noticeable to me, and it seems they can just do it without really having to worry about any repercussions whatsoever. I do not feel this would have been the case back in the old days when boxing was the greatest sport in the world. The backlash would have been severe.

 

I think that there should be room for all styles of fighter. There are plenty of great featherfists out there who should not be disadvantaged just because their primary offer isn't power.

Yes, it's entertainment but it is also a sport that affords those with skill, speed and superior defensive ability the chance to compete with guys who can land bombs and have power. Some guys have both but there is room for all.

If one guy lands 20 jabs and boxes well but is opened up by a right hook that does some damage to him I don't think it's fair that he be penalised for being banged up in that fashion. It's enough that a guy like that is exposed to being KO'd and that is a serious advantage for guys with power. The lighter fisted guy has to often survive for 12, the bomber can end it at any time. That advantage alone is enough.

I think the current scoring system works well. It's not perfect but it doesn't need an overhaul. What needs an overhaul is how judges actually assess fights.

 

I mean,it actually does make sense when you word it like that.

 

Also, some damage can be seen, other damage cannot.

For example, you can see a cut or a bruise to the face but if a guy is landing a heap of body shots you won't necessarily see the damage caused to internal organs. So under this premise head shots become much more important than body shots. And once we start actually manipulating the sport in this way we will change it...and likely for the worse.

 

Not in my view. Damage is subjective and not all damage is visible as per my post above.

 

I wasn't replying to you mate so no worries.

 

10-8 without a knockdown isn't awarded anywhere near as often as it should be.

 

I agree with this, in the case of Loma Haney where Loma was lighting him up in rounds 10 and 11 I wouldn't have problem with them being 10-8 rounds.

 

Doesn't solve much. Many fighters are pushed as power punches in the media as a way to overhyped them. Those fighters get extra credit based on perception. I've seen supposed power punchers credited with rounds based on the assumption they are doing more damage but objectively watching the fight doesn't show that reality.