what do you think of the computerized scoring? when i was fighting all the non-pros were on the 10point must, 3 3min rounds. there were more ko's and some judges had there heads out of there asses long enough to see a body punch. my opinion is, that the old system built better pros. you had to go out and fight because you had so little time, but a power puncher got credit for hurting a guy who was just pecking away. let me know what you think, does anyone like the new system?
virtually all of the amateur tournaments i competed in were scored on the 10-point-must system...of course, this was 10-15 years ago, before the big, global switch-over to computerized scoring like the system used in the olympics, so i only have experience competing under the one system. however, it seems to me from watching fights scored by the computerized systems that the old 10-point-must was the way to go. it is certainly a more fair system in any 1-on-1 combat sport. computerized scoring rewards non-boxing. it rewards a game of tag over actually being a good fighter. it does nothing to prepare young men for an actual fight, for the pros. this type of computerized scoring certainly accounts for why the recent olympic classes have produced far fewer capable pros. when george foreman was an olympic hero, the amateur competition was not so different from the professional ranks in terms of how the fights were conducted. now they have nothing to do with fighting and everything to do with turning punches into ineffective but barely point worthy little slaps. effective ring generalship in the computer-scored amateurs is running away constantly.
