COMPUTER SCORING SUCKS

DIRT SUGAR · Post by **DIRT SUGAR** » 31 Aug 2004, 06:52

Sorry, but I think the sport has been turned into fencing with gloves.

I talked to a trainer yesterday who had a judge admit to him that sometimes he doesn't know what button he's pressing and that he's given points to the wrong boxer.

I dare anyone to try it at home. Sounds really stupid but sit at your computer and use, say, the 'q' button for the red corner and the 'p' button for the blue corner and see how you match up to the score on TV. I tried it and it was very funny and my reflexes are pretty good, but it was extremely hard to know quite who you're scoring for when the boxers traded punches.

You've got five guys, sitting in different positions, who have a second to see, recognise and score a point, but each judge will have different reflexes.... I'm sorry, is it me or is this just the maddest thing ever?

They say it eliminates cheating.... ha bloody ha!!! So, for example, what's stopping three judges out of five from holding back from scoring for the guy in the blue corner?

No doubt that skill-wise, the computer scoring places a high emphasis on punch picking and accuracy, but there wasn't one bout where I didn't see numerous 'well how did that not score?' queries from the commentators, and likewise, 'great shot' comments for punches that just didn't land?

neil r · Post by **neil r** » 31 Aug 2004, 06:59

Computer scoring is shit. many times we see fights where many many punches have been landed but the final score may only be 10-5 or something. it doesnt favour flurries of punches, mainly rewarding the single puncher. i heard on the commentary (ok it was jim neilly) that judges are now only rewarding hits that land with 'sufficient power', i mean define sifficent power, which certainly never used to be the case, but whats the other options? the computer scoring was brought due in no small part to Roy Jones being robbed in Seoul, when 'manual' judging was used to give the decision to the Korean fighter.

making the ref the sole judge would still give riose to contentious decisions with no doubt the eventual allegations of incompetence or corruption.

be interested to hear what others think the solution might be

Matchfixer · Post by **Matchfixer** » 31 Aug 2004, 08:47

I guess you could use replays and have a team of judges watch the fight on slow motion replay!

I don't know if it's just me but I always seem to focus on one boxer's scoring punches. I find it difficult to focus on both at the same time perhaps because boxers punch so quickly.

harley_man · Post by **harley_man** » 31 Aug 2004, 09:54

I too tried to simulate scoring by tapping my fingers when I thought a guy was scoring. Very, very difficult and, of course, I think I have a perfect eye and am wholly impartial.

Fencing is the wrong comparison though. The technology angle is similar but at least in fencing it is (apparently) quite accurate since a computer registers the blow by specially designed gear on the body. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going by the commentators during Olympic coverage.)

In amateur boxing you have humans punching the buttons. That makes it more comparable to figure skating (corruption) or gymnastics (ineptitude).

I heard talk years ago about rigged gloves, head gear and vests that could read impact. If that technology existed it would be better than five morons punching buttons. Impartial, though not flawed I'm sure.

After yet another Olympics where too much judging controversy took center stage, I'm awfully close to saying everything with judging must go, or the complete flip side: after the final bell (dive, floor routine, synchronized hair styling or whatever), the 5 or 10 or 15 judges go into the deliberation room with the video and emerge with a verdict. Sound like a court of law? So what, our sporting events are headed that way as it is. My take. Yours?

Coconut · Post by **Coconut** » 31 Aug 2004, 10:25

I have less complaint with the computerised system than I do (as I think the original gripe is) with the crapness of the guys pressing the buttons. Body shots are routinely unscored, and even watching objectively there were times when Khan was boxing the Kazakh that he wasn't getting credit for good shots but his opponent was racking up points for nothing. Seemed very bizarre.

That said, amateur judging in my experience is often worse than pro. Maybe just cos I got robbed a couple of times boxing against forces teams. But I wouldn't be against going back to round scoring as opposed to the ridiculous situation where a half-meant jab garners as many points as a full on belt round the chops (and more than a solid hook to the ribs...)

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 01 Sep 2004, 06:25

Wilascek was "only" down twice and the score was 24-23

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Sep 2004, 06:28

The fact that knockdowns don't give you any extra points is just ridiculous, it takes away the advantages normally enjoyed by a power puncher. Unless of course they manage to get a stoppage that is.

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 01 Sep 2004, 06:31

The powerpuncher does have a small advantage, if you get 3 counts in a round or 4 in the fight you loose by TKO (happened in Povetkin vs Rozhnov)

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 01 Sep 2004, 11:40

On this subject I recall a few years ago when this method was first introduced into the Olympics an interview with Sugar Ray Leonard of which the general jist was that Leonard believed that if he was fightining in the vest today he would have little chance of getting Gold. The reason he thought this was, that he said his fast combinations would be way too fast for the judges to be able to hit the buttons 3,4,5,6 tines in a row.

He makes a good point in my opinion.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Sep 2004, 11:55

Yes, plus it's very hard to be sure if they all land, and they have to be corroborated by 3 out of 5 judges, and in a five punch combo, what chance is there of that. You could end up with getting just 1 out of 5!

Even two punch spurts were rarely counted, that's why it's normally one shot at a time.