OK, the Patterson nuthugger returns. Their two bouts, which many on board here have seen, were very interesting. The two results were very rare outcomes. #1 Majority Draw #2 Majority Decision By most accounts (in rounds) it was: Patterson 11 rounds won. Quarry 9 rounds won. Two even. Jerry got the edge with a 4-1 knockdown advantage. Does California scoring even still exist? Even round? 0-0 Fighter wins round? 1-0 One knockdown? 2-0 Two knockdowns? 3-0 Granted Jerry wasn't quite prime yet and Floyd was, as he often was, the passive aggressor for the most part. Fight 1: After losing the first round and getting decked twice in the second, Floyd was losing 4-0. He came back like a champion in the middle rounds and had the lead going into the last two rounds, then played 'cigar store Indian' in the last two letting Jerry salvage a draw. Fight 2: After winning the 1st round, Floyd got decked in the 2nd and the 4th ("flashers"-he was embarrassed and smiling after both) By the end of the 5th he was horribly behind 6-1 and won basically every round after that, save one even round. IMO, had Floyd showed up with the moxie we all knew he had, he would have bested Quarry both times, beat Spencer, and beat Ellis for the WBA title in Oakland in early 68 prior to their Stockholm scrap in Sept. of that year. Another granted, given my scenerio, he probably would have had to face Frazier at some point in 69, not an optimistic what-if. But given that, he could have been 60-5 or 60-6 for his career if you give him the Maxim bout. Two Liston losses, two Ali losses, and Ingo 1 which he avenged twice. This 'China Chin' nonsense escapes me? But back to the California scoring system. Is it still in effect? Just interested as I don't really follow boxing anymore.
One of the most interesting posts I've seen here in quite awhile. Aside from the defunct California scoring a good point was about Floyd's passive aggressive ring behavior which left me wanting for the onfire Patterson often. The Eilis bout (which I had a draw) is a good example of a win he never really went after.
Is the California scoring system based on ****-poor, inept, biased judging? If so, yes, Quarry deserved those two gifts he got over Patterson. Patterson is 3-0 against Quarry and Ellis.
The California system was the best scoring system ever. It was possible to win a round with up to 4 points (It think it was possible to score a round 5-0, but I don´t think it was ever used). So boxer A who just nicked 3 rounds would get 1 point for each, and boxer B who won three rounds convinsingly would get 2 points for each. In sted of a 57-57 draw, B would get a 6 rounds decision 6-3. This California scoring saved the two fights for Quarry, where Floyd would have won if scored by rounds (N.Y. scoring at that time) or 10-point must system. The Patterson-Ellis fight is another matter. Ellis did not win - The sleepwalking Floyd Patterson lost.
Yeah, sounds like a better scoring system. Then again, the 10-point-must system could be a better system if it was used differently. I mean, you can get unanimous 10-9 by having a barely perceptible advantage over the opponent, in a round that others might reasonably see as 10-10 or 9-10 ..... But absurdly you might batter an opponent all over the place and have the whole f***ing arena screaming at the referee to stop the fight, and you only get some 10-8 for your troubles.
You are right - The 10 Point-must-system could be much better. Some years ago they used a much better version in Australia. If you just nicked the round it was 10-9, if you won resonably well it was 10-8 and if you won big with several knock downs you could win a round something like 10-5.
