WBA to Change Scoring Rules to Reduce # of Controversial Decisons

Personally, I've been an advocate of the half-point scoring system for a long time. There's a qualitative difference between winning a round clearly and decisively (although not to the degree that it should be scored 10-8)) and just nicking a close round. The outmoded and inefficient 10 point system is utterly incapable of reflecting this basic fact of boxing, its demise is long overdue.

 

I actually believe this is a step in the right direction. I like this idea a lot. Good move!

 

Actually, you're missing the point.

Look at the Bradley-Pac fight. All the rounds Bradley won were close, i.e. 10-9.5.

Pacquiao won several rounds by an obvious wide margin, therefore 10-9.

So a dominant round is worth 2 close rounds in this system. And had the judges had the option to score 10-9.5 rounds, the outcome might have been different (assuming no corruption involved, which is assuming a lot, of course).

 

Isn't that the one were they lose a bunch of money playing pool and Uncle Phil has to bail them out?

 

Sure there's a difference between nicking a close round and clearly winning a round, but this half-point idea will just mean that favourites and 'house' fighters will be given wins they don't deserve based on judges fudging the figures. Yes, that happens now already, but that's my point; nothing will change. Win six rounds and lose by three points? That's bull****. It's not the scoring that's broken, it's the judges.

 

But this system will help the 2% judges that are scoring in good faith. And that's better than nothing.

 

It's still subject to human error though. You'll still have judges scoring rounds closer or wider than some people would score them. As things stand, judges can award a round as a 10-8 if one fighter has been dominant. It's this idea that many judges seem to have, that it's somehow wrong to score rounds a draw, that's causing problems.

 

of course there's still human error. But it offers the judges more to work with.
So the scores should be slightly more accurate, assuming good faith judging.

If judges can't reliably tell the difference between a close and dominant round, then it adds nothing. If they can on average (even with considerable error) tell the difference, then it adds more precision to the system.

 

But where do you draw the line between a round being not quite close enough to be scored as close, or not quite dominant enough to be scored as dominant? This proposal solves nothing. If anything it makes the situation worse by offering more scope for 'creative' scoring.

 

There's no such thing as an even round, that's a physical impossibility.

I agree that judges can be corrupt/incompetent, but an inclination to score fights in such a manner tyrannizes the scoring system, not the other way round; it's not furnished by the latter and will unfortunately be present whatever the system.

It's just a question of adopting a model that's more logically reflective of reality.

And as for the mathematical miscalculation arguments that some make; really? Is simplicity really a salient argument for sticking with an antiquated model in this technological age?

 

The scoring method isn't what's causing the problem though. In fights like Chisora-Helenius, Rios-Abril, or any other example of aberrant scoring, it's been widely accepted that the judges have been at fault, not the scoring system. To say there's no such thing as an even round is nonsense. If you have two guys who throw and land the exact same number of punches and neither guy has the other in trouble, who would you sore it for? What's so dastardly about saying "hey, you guys both did well that time"?

You talk of adopting a model that's more reflective of reality, but the reality is that boxing isn't a clear-cut sport to score. Unlike the majority of other sports, and certainly the vast majority of pro sports, boxing isn't as simple as counting the goals or seeing who's first past the finish line. Do you score for aggression or defensive nous? Quantity of punches landed or quality of punches landed? When one guy is advancing and the other retreating, which is 'in control'? What counts as 'effective' aggression? Some might argue that punches missed are still effective if they nullify an opponent or back him up. Others would say that's not the case.

 

That's unnecessary ambiguity, any genuine boxing follower can tell the difference betwen a clear and a close round.

Creative scoring is corruption. Corruption is self-sufficient, it'll find a way to be reflected in the scoring irrespective of the system; as will incompetence. This proposal makes the situation better by allowing honest and judicious scorers to reflect the qualitative differences inherent in rounds that are clearly won and those that are barely won.

 

Disagree. I think it gives bent officials an easier way to shave points off the guy who's meant to lose, or vice versa; to give extra half-points to the favoured fighter.

 

I'll ask you a question, then.

For rating the attractiveness of a women, would you say the optimal scoring system would have two values (0 and 1) for "unattractive" and "attractive"?

You're friend wants to set you up on a date. You ask: is she hot?

the reply: totally, man, she's a 1.


You'd rather there be more degrees of freedom on the attractiveness rating scale, right? But it's every bit as a subjective as boxing scoring and there is no right answer. But still, you'd have to agree that more points menas more precision.