Amateur Rules Reform Suggestion Forum

[therealPunchDrunk]

Untill we get judges who are up to the task of judging fairly, no amount of rule changes will make a difference.

How do you think this should be accomplished?

I wish I had an answer for that...

[boxmel]

I wish I had an answer for that...

Welll - what do you think? Something must have gone through your mind when you posted. :)

[emile]

Today has been a bad day. My optimism is cracking - previously I wasn't aware of any fights where a clearly superior fighter had lost. Maybe some close shaves either way, and some unrepresentative scores.

They have done a good job installing transparency into the scoring, but that's only useful if you use it. It does make me think though that perhaps open scoring is necessary. There is nothing more sickening than watching a fight, ammy or pro, and seeing a beat guy get his hand raised at the end with no warning or explanation. Today's issues would have been worse if they had just ended with a hand raise.

I have to say now that AIBA has made a major mistake by changing the judging guidelines before their most important tournament. Whether or not it's better to score more or score less, it is not right to change the expectations on the fighters at this time. It reminds me of the Soccer World Cup, where FIFA always goes into the tournament with some harsh new dictate for the refs and then expects them to enforce it to its maximum. This is not the time to change.

[boxmel]

I have to say now that AIBA has made a major mistake by changing the judging guidelines before their most important tournament.

I'll check with Jim McNally when he gets back from Beijing but I honestly don't think any of the judging guidelines have changed. Sometimes they tell the judges to loosen up on scoring and sometimes they don't. Either way, I don't think it would much change the outcome - the accepted scores might be higher but that would be all.

[emile]

I have to say now that AIBA has made a major mistake by changing the judging guidelines before their most important tournament.

I'll check with Jim McNally when he gets back from Beijing but I honestly don't think any of the judging guidelines have changed. Sometimes they tell the judges to loosen up on scoring and sometimes they don't. Either way, I don't think it would much change the outcome - the accepted scores might be higher but that would be all.

I hear you, but I think changing the amount of accepted scores is pretty important. I don't think they should change their scoring technique from the World Championships, unless there are major problems there. Maybe they thought there were.

[boxmel]

I

hear you, but I think changing the amount of accepted scores is pretty important.

Ummmm - I don't think I'm hearing what you are saying. Seems to me that scoring higher or lower wouldn't change any outcomes - that the results (winner and loser) would be the same. I'm sure the spectators would be much happier seeing higher accepted scores - but that's about all that would be accomplished.

[emile]

I

hear you, but I think changing the amount of accepted scores is pretty important.

Ummmm - I don't think I'm hearing what you are saying. Seems to me that scoring higher or lower wouldn't change any outcomes - that the results (winner and loser) would be the same. I'm sure the spectators would be much happier seeing higher accepted scores - but that's about all that would be accomplished.

While it's not a massive effect, I do think it clearly changes strategy. There's not a perfect ratio of punches being scored or not scored. If more punches get scored, then it's more important to throw. If less punches are scored, it's more important to time single clear shots. It might not change that many winners/losers, but I think it's important for the fighters to know what to expect ahead of time (and perhaps they were appraised, I don't know).

[boxmel]

While it's not a massive effect, I do think it clearly changes strategy. There's not a perfect ratio of punches being scored or not scored. If more punches get scored, then it's more important to throw. If less punches are scored, it's more important to time single clear shots.

I don't really think, and this is just my opinion, that judges scoring high or low should change any strategy. Amateur boxers should throw punches from the beginning of round 1 and not stop until the end of round 4. That should never change. In my experience, boxers who "wait" to time a clear single shot usually fall behind in the scoring.

[Grey]

I've been trying to be optimistic about the system as well, but when that Thai fighter this morning got a point for a punch that the ref called illegal, I cringed.

[boxmel]

I've been trying to be optimistic about the system as well, but when that Thai fighter this morning got a point for a punch that the ref called illegal, I cringed.

Grey - I haven't had a chance to look at yesterday's bouts, but I've seen a few bouts this week where a punch has been thrown and landed and at the same time the ref gives the boxer a caution for slapping, points pop up. This can happen if the judge doesn't wait until he sees the punch land. Did the point the Thai boxer got impact the decision in any way?

[Canada]

I've been trying to be optimistic about the system as well, but when that Thai fighter this morning got a point for a punch that the ref called illegal, I cringed.

I have seen that many times. The ref will warn the one fighter for hitting with the palm or none white area of the glove, but the point is stil counted. Scoring always seems to be a huge issue in amatuer boxing. Maybe the fighters should all fight then after the session, video review is done on each bout to see exactly which punches landed. Then once that is done the winners are announced. Of course this will never ever happen, but it would be very accurate.

[therealPunchDrunk]

While it's not a massive effect, I do think it clearly changes strategy. There's not a perfect ratio of punches being scored or not scored. If more punches get scored, then it's more important to throw. If less punches are scored, it's more important to time single clear shots.

I don't really think, and this is just my opinion, that judges scoring high or low should change any strategy. Amateur boxers should throw punches from the beginning of round 1 and not stop until the end of round 4. That should never change. In my experience, boxers who "wait" to time a clear single shot usually fall behind in the scoring.

Well, I think you're dead wrong on this particular issue. Just like there are many nuances and specifics about judging that probably fly over the heads of us coaches and fighters, this seems to be something you don't quite understand. Whether the score is high or low will have a huge impact on the tactics a fighter has to employ to be succesful for several reasons. For instance, if the score is high, like 30-40-50 points for the winner, pretty much anything thrown wil score. That's how it was a few years ago, and having a solid guard did nothing to limit your opponents scoring. You had to move out of the way. With the current score, you see fighters with tight guards having success they wouldn't have had 3 years ago.
Also, it changes what kind of punches you can expect to get points from. I remember seeing guys get points for jabs, and sometimes you'd get 2-3 points from a good combination.
Also, the lower the score, the more cautious you have to be in the beginning of the fight, because if you mess up (or just out of the seemingly random points they give when hits are exchanged), being one or two behind is next to disaster. Come on, you must be able to see that? If you can expect to get 10-15 points over a full fight, being two down is a lot worse than if you can expect to get 40 points. It simply makes those situations where both guys hit each other cleanly, and only one guy gets a point, much more crucial. It becomes more random who wins the fight.
With a higher score, there are more chances to even out the randomness of single exchanges like that. Just like when you throw dice. The more times you throw, the bigger the chance of exactly 1 in six being a fiver, for instance.

So, in short, too high and too low scores have disadvantages. I think 20 to 40 points for the winner in a good paced bout is the right level of scoring (and close to what actually goes on, jabs etc. included), where it won't be too random.

One thing that bothers me a lot about the scoring at these Olympics (and it's been like that at other events for a while now), is the way a fighter gets totally cut off by the judges, once he's behind by a few points. How is it, that in 80-90% of the fights, the losing fighter gets less than 5 points over four rounds, when in most of those fights, even the loser should be getting that amount each round? Granted, in a few fights, the loser is almost shut out, but not 80% of the fights.

[therealPunchDrunk]

I wish I had an answer for that...

Welll - what do you think? Something must have gone through your mind when you posted. :)

Yeah, I was thinking about what is a very obvious problem to just about anyone who watches amateur boxing these days. The thing is, it was like that before, only it looked a little different because of the old scoring system. This new system is what the great minds came up with, and it is clearly not working. I know it's easy to point fingers, and yell about problems without offering a solution, but I guess the conclusion is that there isn't one... Maybe a technology that will enable a computer to decide when a legal punch is landed with sufficient force in the target area? I'm sure that will be a very difficult thing to develop in a satisfactory way, though...

[boxmel]

So, in short, too high and too low scores have disadvantages. I think 20 to 40 points for the winner in a good paced bout is the right level of scoring (and close to what actually goes on, jabs etc. included), where it won't be too random.

Think about how many times the judges have to push the buttons to get a 20 to 40 points accepted score! I just don't believe that ANY boxer can throw 80 or more legal effective punches in two minutes.

One thing that bothers me a lot about the scoring at these Olympics (and it's been like that at other events for a while now), is the way a fighter gets totally cut off by the judges, once he's behind by a few points.

You're saying that once a boxer gets behind, the judges stop pushing buttons for him?

Yeah, I was thinking about what is a very obvious problem to just about anyone who watches amateur boxing these days. The thing is, it was like that before, only it looked a little different because of the old scoring system.

The manual scoring system?

This new system is what the great minds came up with, and it is clearly not working.

Been around, with upgrades, since 1992 (and before, but first used in the Olympics in '92).

Maybe a technology that will enable a computer to decide when a legal punch is landed with sufficient force in the target area? I'm sure that will be a very difficult thing to develop in a satisfactory way, though...

Australia's trying to come up with something like the gear used in fencing. However, this will never work for many reasons: too heavy (sensors would have to be placed on every square inch of the scoring area), too expensive, no way to tell whether the punch is legal or not.

[geenolv]

Hi everyone, new to the board.
As big a problem as the judging may be the referees are just as bad or worse.
I don't know why they allow so much holding, wrestling, stalling and running.
Many of the fights at the Olympics are absolutely horrible to watch.
Boxing can be a beautiful sport to watch but not when it's allowed to turn into the kind of exibition that's going on this year.
I would love to see just one referee take control and not allow the fighters to hold the way they do.
In some of the fights I've seen there's barely 20 seconds going by before a clinch.
I'd rather see both fighters get Dq'd in a fight like that.
If that were to happen even once I bet it stop a lot of what is ruining a great sport.
As much as I love boxing most of the fights at the Olympics have been hard for me to watch.I can imagine what a casual fan must think.

[therealPunchDrunk]

So, in short, too high and too low scores have disadvantages. I think 20 to 40 points for the winner in a good paced bout is the right level of scoring (and close to what actually goes on, jabs etc. included), where it won't be too random.

Think about how many times the judges have to push the buttons to get a 20 to 40 points accepted score! I just don't believe that ANY boxer can throw 80 or more legal effective punches in two minutes.

One thing that bothers me a lot about the scoring at these Olympics (and it's been like that at other events for a while now), is the way a fighter gets totally cut off by the judges, once he's behind by a few points.

You're saying that once a boxer gets behind, the judges stop pushing buttons for him?

Yeah, I was thinking about what is a very obvious problem to just about anyone who watches amateur boxing these days. The thing is, it was like that before, only it looked a little different because of the old scoring system.

The manual scoring system?

This new system is what the great minds came up with, and it is clearly not working.

Been around, with upgrades, since 1992 (and before, but first used in the Olympics in '92).

Maybe a technology that will enable a computer to decide when a legal punch is landed with sufficient force in the target area? I'm sure that will be a very difficult thing to develop in a satisfactory way, though...

Australia's trying to come up with something like the gear used in fencing. However, this will never work for many reasons: too heavy (sensors would have to be placed on every square inch of the scoring area), too expensive, no way to tell whether the punch is legal or not.

Well, a few years ago, they did get that many points accepted score, and honestly, that made a lot more sense to me.

Yes, I'm saying once a boxer gets behind they seem to stop scoring for him. Or he has to get at least 4-5 hevay clear shots in before they'll start scoring for him again. Look at the fights, it's quite obvious.

I know the system's been around a long time. As you know, it was a reaction to the 1988 Olympics, and the RJJ debacle. Doesn't seem to have worked... My point was, if that's the best they can come up with, how do you expect me to solve the problem? Human imperfection is the hardest thing in the world to correct.

I agree, that technology is a long way off. So, no solutions... :(

[boxmel]

Also, the lower the score, the more cautious you have to be in the beginning of the fight, because if you mess up (or just out of the seemingly random points they give when hits are exchanged), being one or two behind is next to disaster.

The goal of amateur boxing is to outpoint your opponent. You need to start Round 1 throwing punches and do so until the end of Round 4. Never, ever "wait" - first round, second round, third round, or fourth round, especially with computer scoring. I don't know what you mean by being cautious in the beginning if you have a lower score.

I agree that some of the refs are not wonderful. However, AIBA has said that holding should be allowed unless it is flagrant (guess they don't know the meaning of flagrant).

[therealPunchDrunk]

The rules of a sport determine which tactics you need to employ to be succesful. If there was no shot clock in basketball the teams would try to hold on to the ball for the last minute of a game if they were up by one. Since there is a shot clock, that is not possible. IF goal tending was allowed, tall guys who could dunk would be even more valuable, and small three point shooters would be next to worthless. The dynamics of the game would change.

Do you agree that open scoring has changed the dynamics of amateur boxing matches, as opposed to having to guess whether you were ahead or not?

You are oversimplifying what goes on in a boxing match, it is not just about throwing punches like a pair of rock'em sock'em robots (and thank God for that!). If the score is lower, letting the other guy get a point is a much bigger problem for you than if the score is high. Therefore greater caution is needed.

[boxmel]

Do you agree that open scoring has changed the dynamics of amateur boxing matches, as opposed to having to guess whether you were ahead or not?

You'll actually have to ask a coach this question - if they are training their athletes any differently. I haven't seen any major change from a judge's point of view. I don't think the boxers should be distracted by being able to see the score, however.

You are oversimplifying what goes on in a boxing match, it is not just about throwing punches like a pair of rock'em sock'em robots (and thank God for that!).

Sorry. Didn't mean to oversimplify. However, that is sometimes needed to get a point across.

If the score is lower, letting the other guy get a point is a much bigger problem for you than if the score is high. Therefore greater caution is needed.

Yes - but this doesn't mean you should stop throwing punches.

[therealPunchDrunk]

Do you agree that open scoring has changed the dynamics of amateur boxing matches, as opposed to having to guess whether you were ahead or not?

You'll actually have to ask a coach this question - if they are training their athletes any differently. I haven't seen any major change from a judge's point of view. I don't think the boxers should be distracted by being able to see the score, however.

You are oversimplifying what goes on in a boxing match, it is not just about throwing punches like a pair of rock'em sock'em robots (and thank God for that!).

Sorry. Didn't mean to oversimplify. However, that is sometimes needed to get a point across.

If the score is lower, letting the other guy get a point is a much bigger problem for you than if the score is high. Therefore greater caution is needed.

Yes - but this doesn't mean you should stop throwing punches.

You haven't seen any major change form a judges point of view??? Everybody's been talking about how they get ahead early, and start running the rest of the fight. I'm pretty sure you, yourself had gripes about this? How would that be possible from the second round on, in a closed score fight?
Besides, I am a coach, and yes, it's definitely brought a different aspect to the tactics of a fight. You are able to change tactics according to what the score is, where before you had to guess. This should be obvious to anyone who spent two minutes thinking about it...
Another thing, when your kid's fighting, you can actually see which punches score for him (as opposed to the ones that land, but don't register), and you can make sure he throws those punches some more. This is also quite clearly something they use at the Olympic tournament.

Hmm... how do you propose a fighter should throw nonstop punches cautiously? I think I could use that information if you have it Seriously though, you have to take more time to set up your punches, when a mistake that leads to a point for the other guy could mean the balance of the fight. Like I said before, the higher the score, the bigger the chance you can correct the mistake and get the point back.

[boxmel]

You haven't seen any major change form a judges point of view??? Everybody's been talking about how they get ahead early, and start running the rest of the fight. I'm pretty sure you, yourself had gripes about this? How would that be possible from the second round on, in a closed score fight?

Nope. The Cubans are known for this and have been doing it for years - before open scoring. And, you're right, I don't like it.

Besides, I am a coach, and yes, it's definitely brought a different aspect to the tactics of a fight.

Thanks for making the statement. The only thing I've heard is that coaches tell their boxers to not throw body shots any more - and that's stupid.

You are able to change tactics according to what the score is, where before you had to guess. This should be obvious to anyone who spent two minutes thinking about it...

Maybe this is obvious to another coach or someone who spends two minutes thinking about tactics.

Another thing, when your kid's fighting, you can actually see which punches score for him (as opposed to the ones that land, but don't register), and you can make sure he throws those punches some more. This is also quite clearly something they use at the Olympic tournament.

I learned something. That definitely makes sense.

Hmm... how do you propose a fighter should throw nonstop punches cautiously?

Did I say that? Doesn't make sense to me, either. I might have meant "continuously?"

Seriously though, you have to take more time to set up your punches, when a mistake that leads to a point for the other guy could mean the balance of the fight. Like I said before, the higher the score, the bigger the chance you can correct the mistake and get the point back.

Thanks for the above. I learn something new every day - and I am NOT being facitious. I'm glad you took the time to explain, rather than just hollering at me for being stupid.

[therealPunchDrunk]

I think what the Cubans have been doing is fighting in an elusive style, Like Mayweather in the pros. Moving around, countering effectively, is not the same as running. At least not in my book.

You didn't say "throw punches nonstop cautiously" I said greater caution had to be employed, to which you responded "Yes - but this doesn't mean you should stop throwing punches." I'm assuming the "yes" meant you agreed about the caution, so naturally that would mean you'd have to throw all those punches cautiously.

I dont' think you're stupid at all, it just surprises me that we can get such different impressions, watching the same thing. :)

[Canada]

The Cubans Ive seen so far havent "ran" at all. They fought to the final bell and in the case of the last Cuban I saw Ugas, he kept coming foward even when he was winning 10-2. Also if you are moving around and still throwing counters you are not running, running is when your constantly moving around throwing no punches. The Cubans have fought beautifully

[boxmel]

dont' think you're stupid at all, it just surprises me that we can get such different impressions, watching the same thing.

I'm a judge and you're a coach. We look for and see different things. Seriously.

Also if you are moving around and still throwing counters you are not running, running is when your constantly moving around throwing no punches.

Not necessarily. The Cubans can "run" and throw at the same time.

The Cubans have fought beautifully

I haven't said they didn't. I agree. 8)

[Gray-Fox]

I think I've clocked onto to what's happening re scoring...

Basically, the higher scores of the past were causing accusations stating that those that merely "throw" and not necessarily land, loads of punches, are benefiting the most...so in their infinite wisdom, the AIBA officials have obviously been briefed to score only what they are SURE they have seen. Of course, the old rule still applies to Chinese boxers (!!)...

That's how it appears to me anyway. I can't recall seeing any RSC-Outclassed stoppages during this whole tournament.

I remember pre-Athens at the Thailand world champs, the scores were like 44-27 etc.

What do others think?