Subjectivity in boxing

I judge every round on a mental swing-o-meter.

Normally one guy will be in control for a certain period of time then it swings over back and forth.

The only problem I have with scoring fights is when it's too close to call the round. In this case though normally throughout the fight there will be other close rounds..so i take into account who i scored the first close round in favor for 10-9 then give the next close round to the other fighter.

1. Rarely ever happens. It would have to get to the point whereby it looks like the hurt fighter is in danger of getting stopped (ref should initiate a standing count but for some reason they don't do this often) Last fight to my memory was Bradley Provo where Bradley got up from a 'No knockdown' but then fell over again....Ref should have counted that really in my eyes...to give Provo a 10-8 round rather than 10-9.

2. Cba to answer fully (A damaging shot will sway my swing-o-meter by a large percentage 25-40% so the guy who got hurt better have been winning the round nicely to get the round scored in his favour)

3. Don't take any notice of it or score from it - Unless the round continues in this fashion whereby I would then have to score the round in favor of the aggressive fighter who hit nothing but gloves.

4. No.

5. Yes I give more credit to the more powerful shot. you're screwed if your opponent hits harder but can match/beat you to the punch lol.

 

I'm more willing than most current official judges to score rounds 10-10, but still try to avoid it for all but the most difficult occasions. No benefit of the doubt when scoring should ever be granted for the house fighter or the champion; "you have to take the belt from the champ" is one of the most misguided cliches in the whole sport.

 

The original rules where the combatants simply kept fighting until someone got knocked out took all this hard to follow subjectivity out of the equation. Oh for the old rules.

 

I agree 100%. I also miss the coliseum, which was far superior to the tripe on TV these days.

 

MMA in a cage. Boxing in a coliseum. Makes sense to me :good

 

That makes some kind of sense to me too.

 

It would take a pretty bad pummeling for me to score a round 10-8 without a KD.

Here are some examples:

Mayweather-Gatti Round 6
Golota-Bowe 2 Round 7

I think that even before the knockdown in the final seconds, I would not have argued with anyone who had the last round of Vasquez-Marquez 3 a 10-8 round.

As for a guy winning the round and then getting rocked late in it, it kind of depends on how stunned or rocked he was.

I don't give a guy any credit for missing punches or throwing them and getting blocked. Now if he happens to get through with something grazing, well that's better than nothing. I have given rounds to guys who have only landed grazing shots that weren't that clean when the other guy didn't do ****.

I don't pay attention to cuts or bruises. Some guys just get busted up quicker, sometimes the marks don't even come from clean punches. Could be a clash of heads, possibly a pre-existing cut that opened. Chavez-Taylor 1, it didn't take 12 rounds for Taylor to show the damage. He was already pretty damn marked up a couple rounds before, and clearly had won more rounds than Chavez. Another case is Bowe-Golota 2. Golota's face looked worse than Bowe's, but I only gave Bowe 2 rounds.

I don't give extra credit because one guy has a rep for being a big puncher and the other has one for being feather fisted. Only if we see his punches doing more damage. Now seeing the reactions of the guys getting hit, that's a different story.

 

I only score a round 10-8 if there is a knockdown. The guy could get thrown around the ring the whole round but if he stays on his feet I give him 9 points.

 

1. Only with a KD.
   
2. a) A lot. It means the punches landed were clean and effective. B) It might win the round, but it depends on the round as a whole. Cleaner, harder, effective punches, and doing more damage, is the name of the game.
   
3. It doesn't count as punches landed, but it might count a little as effective aggression if it is preventing the other fighter from continually doing anything.
   
4. Only as one blow landed. Once the damage happens, the fighter does not continue to get credit for it unless he makes it worse or continues to exploit it.
   
5. Yes.
   

I know the regulatory guidelines say you should avoid scoring a round even. But I think that results in bias creeping into close rounds. If the round is even, score it even. It nothing happens in a round, score it even.

Also, I follow the way Arthur Mercante used to score, by dividing a round into three minutes and scoring each minute. The fighter who wins the majority of the three minutes wins the round. Or if they tie, then I score it 10-10.

 

Punch Stats/Compubox are both subjective, they push the buttons, they are humans, not computers, they score for the house fighter................

 

1. I think scoring a dominantround without a knockdown only 10-8 doesn't make enough use of the 10 point system. 10-8 rounds are generally only given if one fighter seriously hurts and thoroughly outclasses the other throughout the round. I think the AIBA makes more sensible use of the 10 point system: by scoring a "close" round 10-9, a "clear" round 10-8, a "dominant" round 10-7, and a round in which a fighter is "overmatched" round 10-6. Basically what's now scored 10-9 could be scored 10-9, 10-8, or 10-7, while what's now occasionally scored 10-8 would be scored 10-6. There's still plenty of room for point deductions with 10 points. Then the fighter who basically controlled the fight more would usually get the nod in close or debateable fights in rounds.

2. Scoring has to primarly be about who's landing more clean blows. A more 'damaging' punch should generally get more credit than a light punch. But the issue should be the 'effectiveness' of the punch, ie whether a fighter's able to seize control with the punch. It's irrelevant if a fighter's stunned if he's able to compete on equal terms. I think scoring should favour power a bit less than it does currently. Power in boxing is its own reward, by pushing an opponent back so he isn't set to return punches, or getting a knockdown or knockout.

3. If a punch is partially blocked or the opponent slips or rides with the punch and it only grazes, it is simply not a scoring blow. In fact the boxer who blocks or evades a punch should be given the scoring benefit for his defense. If a fighter throws a combination that hits nothing but air the defender undoubtedly got the better of the segment, even if he didn't return a punch.

4. Cuts or facial damage should be irrelevant to scoring, as they're supposed to be now. We're judging boxing, not bloodsport.

5. If one fighter visibily moves the other back with the same punch the other lands, then he should get the benefit as landing the more effective blow. If one fighter with the reputation as a power puncher and a lighter puncher both land the same punch, with no other factors to score the punch should be considered the same however. Reputation shouldn't be a factor or influence scoring.

I'll add that I think 'effective aggressiveness' should be removed as a criteria. It's too often meant ineffective aggression has unfairly won fights. Aggression should only be considered an attribute of ring generalship. If aggression is effective, the aggressive fighter should be either landing punches or regarded as controlling the pace and style of the bout and considered the ring general.