I had it for Golovkin, 10-9-10-10, but it sometimes depends if you're scoring based on what your eyes are seeing or what your heart's feeling. If a boxer wins the battle but seems firmly on course to lose the war, I think it's fair enough to go with that in your scoring. If you're playing draughts and you lose one to take two, but that leaves you in a more vulnerable position, do you look at the move in isolation or the fallout? The answer is that you score round-by-round, so the move wins that round for the player. But I can appreciate why some judges score according to their perceptions of the tide.
I'd like to trial something like a cumulative-volume system, where each judge has two sliders that go from 0 to 2 in increments of 1, and a computer adds up who won at the end by overall volume. So throughout the entire fight you'd be choosing between 0-0, 1-1 and 2-2 for level action at three intensities, or 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1 in favour. In more visual terms it's akin to two buckets of water and two baths, and pouring from the relevant bucket whenever its fighter's doing well; the better he's doing, the faster you pour. And the winner's the one with the most water in his bath at the end. You could simplify this down to a single button for each boxer: none held; one held without the other; or both held. Tally duration at the end.
You might think it's daft (I admit, it is a bit!), but I've seen tons of fights where one guy
slightly wins 9 rounds, but the other guy wins his 3 by a heavy margin. So the first guy wins comfortably on points, but with a volume system it might be a draw or even a loss. If you lose half a second a lap on the first three laps of a 1500m race, but then gain two seconds on the run-in...
I go with my overall impression because I don't score live fights, but I have scored a few on repeat and come away with a different winner. (Calzaghe-Reid was one; I didn't feel that Reid did quite enough without scoring it, but had him ahead when I did.)
TheLeprechaun wrote:Good post.
Bit wordy, wannit, but cheers.
I just noticed how well Golovkin was sticking to Brook after walking him to the ropes, trapping him in the corners by darting across at the last minute, instead of 'straddling' and leaving both exits open. Golovkin said he made it too much of a brawl for himself, but the way he backs people up like that has always been class. His punching's the brutal eventuality, but it's his footwork and ability to sense your panic that gets him into position.
But he is human, and the mid-30s is where most of us start coming back down the hill. Much earlier for some, and a bit later for the lucky few who haven't suffered much damage. That's why I think that 168 is a really interesting division for him - it's a big challenge at this point of his career given his natural weight. He should definitely stay at 160 for Saunders and Canelo, if not Eubank. Although if he beats Canelo and the Saunders fight flounders, I'd be happy to see him move up.
Versus Ward, Golovkin has a chin that possibly equals Froch's, more power and skill than Froch (especially his footwork), but a shorter reach and a far less proven engine. But then Ward himself has a very average reach for his height, so fighting someone with shorter arms than Froch is both a blessing and - because it's Golovkin - a potential curse. Froch's reach always made him a tricky customer, but he wasn't a big SMW until his later years. Ward walks around at 180, I'm guessing? So if it's a natural stone between the two, that's not a huge difference. McCallum went the distance with the prime Jones.
