The system leaves much to be desired and often has one fighting out of character, so to speak, in order to "win" bouts.
Anyone see the last fight where the world champion "lost?" He didn't register a single point in the final 2 rounds which were his two best rounds and landed many clean and hard punches atsch
Ok. Now did those punches touch anything else on the way in? And where was he fighting at-along the ropes or in ring center?
He was hitting him with clean shots at ring center, along the ropes you name it. The other landed primarily PITTER PATTER punches but every time one landed he got a point, where the world champ would land a left hook and get nothing.
Fair enough. Good post. Still, if you're going to say that body punches can be scored, or that a fighter is allowed to land more than one scoring blow within a couple seconds, then the scoring needs to reflect the rules. Case in point is this fight going on now between the Lithuanian and Kazakstan. A couple of clean blows landed early and weren't counted, and then a winging punch -- with poor technique -- partially connected and was counted. And though you do say speed and accuracy are valued, it seems to me that speed (i.e., combos) and accuracy (e.g., to the body) don't get the proper credit they merit. I'm not trashing the sport and do appreciate your explanation of the differences, but the enforcement of these rules seems doomed under the current setup. Judges still could be corrupt if they so desired. If you get good people, though, there's no reason not to overhaul the present system.
In the USA when paper scoring is used; in the event of a draw three criteria are used to judge a match-Effective Aggression, Better Defense, Cleaner Style (in that order). In the Olympics, if both the score and the punch count is tied; they'll poll the judges using that criteria.
Yep, I agree with most of your points in this post. Even taking into account the fact that the amateur scoring system is supposed to reward different things, and that the object of the fight is different, the scoring system still gets things wrong. The two biggest problems are that (a) even good body punching is underscored and (b) even very clean combos are underscored. These are real problems as the amateur rules are supposed to count any cleanly connected punch, with some force behind it. However, taking into account these problems this system is still an improvement. Sometimes the wrong boxer wins a fight, but outright robberies really have been reduced since the computer system came in. Amateur boxing used to be notorious for dodgy decisions. Now, it is probably better than the pro game in that regard.
"Most pro boxing fans don't like amateur scoring because they don't understand what amateur boxing is. Basically amateur boxing is a (pure) sport and pro boxing is entertainment." This is complete garbage. A better analogy is that amateur boxing is like boxing with training wheels. It is important, but it does not provide a final answer about how good a fighter is, and it necessarily shackles fighters who are disadvantaged by the training wheels. - Jason
No, it means that they're good at a version of the sport that isn't the same as pro boxing. I can assure you that within the USA on the domestic level we don't play point games. Pro boxing is a blood sport; amateur boxing is a technical sport.
I agree. Amateur boxing is not less talented professional boxing. I've been watching these amateur boxing bouts and it's alot different than professional boxing. Maybe when people catch onto that fact, they'll enjoy AM boxing alot more.
Problem is if you are a fighter who naturally moves their hands alot you win even if the other guy is a better fighter. Amatuer and pro really are two different sports.