WBA to Change Scoring Rules to Reduce # of Controversial Decisons

Boxing has its criteria for scoring rounds, including those you enunciate, but again that's unnecessary obfuscation in relation to the half-point scoring system.

Can you tell the difference between a round that's decisively won and one that is closely won? Yes you can. All those factors you name are irrelevant in relation to a decisively won round, they would only become pertinent in judging who won an extremely close round. A clear cut round is just that!
It's an indication of the degree of a fighters overall successfulness in his endeavours. How can it be wrong to draw a distinction between instances where he's markedly succeeded in these as opposed to marginally succeeded? We need this distinction, but our formalistic scoring system cannot accommodate it.

To say there's no such thing as an even round is not nonsense, it's an unequivocal truth. A is never equal to A, let alone to B. An even round is an impossibility.

We're in agreement about the judges being frequently at fault. That doesn't change the fact that the scoring system is defective.

 

So introduce a 1-100 scoring system, per round. All it does it give corrupt or incompetent judges a way to manipulate the scores in greater depth. This proposal is a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to divert attention from the problem, which is human. The current system isn't perfect, but changing it in the manner that's being suggested is not the solution.

 

You're missing the point, with some aplomb. How long would it be, under the proposed new scoring system, where we see a guy lose a fight because one or more of the judges deems him to have not won his rounds 'enough' for them to be considered clear rounds?

Supposing on a scale of 1-100 that 1-50 is a close round, and 51-100 is a clear round. It only takes a judge to decide that a round was a 51 instead of a 50 (or vice versa), and we have a gift decision when a different result would've been more apt. Boxing simply does not lend itself to being easily-scored.

Of course there are rounds which can be considered even. How can we as spectators accurately gauge how effective a punch was, or how much of a particular action was intentional or anticipated or just plain good fortune? I appreciate the points toure trying to make, but I really don't think that complicating the scoring system this way will make anything better.

 

What are you saying? If a guy loses a fight because the judges deem him not to have done 'enough' for them to be considered clear rounds (assuming the judges are competent and on the level) then this is a GOOD THING! Such a scenario would be representative of the aggregate qualitative difference between his opponents output in the fight and his own. That's the beauty of this system, it has a flexibility that the statuesque 10 point system doesn't have.

It's not a scale of 1-100 and all that jazz, it's very simply: 10-9.5 for a close round, 10-9 for a clear round, 10-8, 10-7 etc., for knockdowns, and of course 10-8 for those one sided shellackings that don't result in knockdowns. Look, I'm not saying this system can rectify incompetent scoring; I'm not saying that boxing is easy to score; all I contend is that there's a clear difference between a round that's clearly won and a round that's barely won, and that any scoring system worth its salt should be capable of reflecting this. This system improves on the 10 point must system, without fusing any new negative elements to it.

No, there are no even rounds. There can be no even rounds since no two distinct entities can be self-identical, even for a second. There are close rounds; there are razor thin rounds, but there can never, EVER be even rounds. (Except if you've one man in the ring fighting himself and himself alone, then you must have an even round, irrespective of the action)!
Of course the scoring of such rounds is subjective, each of us will see different things accoring to the relative weight we apportion to the various judging criteria; but we must score these rounds in favour of one of the combatants.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

"BLARHGFDAFFDDEHURGHGHHEBLAHGH! Let's obfuscate and complicate things even more, that will fix it up. :beat"

 

In spite of all your pseudo-intellectual musings and your liberal use of words of which I doubt you know the meaning, you're coming across as pretty dim. For that reason, and because it's 5am here, I really can't be arsed to continue this conversation at this time. You're meandering and digressing too much from the actual bones of the issue, my friend.

 

This is why the Ring is the only one.

 

ref: "stop the fight! let's look at the replay first"

lol

 

I'm interested in this. Its an easy not too drastic change to make and may very well be a step in the right direction. Of course you could see this going lots of different ways. You could see it as a way that corrupt judges could keep a money making fighter in the fight. Or prevent a none money making fighter from running away with a fight.

 

Clarky Cat has been holding it down in here, voice of reason. :good

 

Where's you come across as illuminating as an eclipse!

Ah, the old ad hominem, get-out-of-jail-free-card eh.

It's 5am here too strangely enough. Good morning to you oh resplendent one!

 

The best way to fix judging is to have only true boxing experts/historians and former boxing champions as judges instead of these uneducated idiots that have plagued boxing since it's inception. Ther will always be contoversy but I would respect say Big georges opinion over the current selection used by athletic commissions.

 

funny how these gents having extremely low on brain oxygen yet still trying to pick an argument at 5am. go to sleep ffs!