How to judge a fight : Why do we get ridiculous scoring ??

[Quixall]

I was thinking recently about how a fight should be judged. After watching the Hagler - Leonard fight where one judge had Leonard at 118-110, it got me thinking on how that sort of thing can happen. The same was the case with Cleverley - Bellew fight, where one judge got the scores way out in comparison to the other judges and general opinion. I know you can get split decisions going the wrong way, as was the case with the Chisora - Helenius fight, but to get a fight five rounds out from the other judges, as was the case in the Hagler - Leonard fight, either suggests incompetence or corruption.

I know it's not an exact science, but i believe that many people will judge a fight by how many punchers are thrown, the type of punches, whether combinations are used, whether one fighter is coming forward more, the defence, how many pinches are blocked, general ringcraft and above all, an idea of whom seems to be dominating and catching the eye. When we discuss fights on the site, practically none of us gets the bout different in terms of scoring by seven rounds, we are normally between one to three rounds out, absolute max and a rarity is five rounds difference in scoring.

I know that i have viewed a fight on the night and then watched it back again and have got a different score if it's gone to points. Sometimes i have seen it closer than i initially did, sometimes on rare occasions i have given it to the other guy, but only when the fight was very very close. I could watch that Hagler - Leonard fight again and perhaps switch sides as to who i think the victor was, having got it as a draw that last time i watched it. But one thing i would never do and havn't done, is somehow give one or both guys a completely different score in comparison to my first set of results.

Why is it that some guys get a score way out ? Do you think it is corruption or just plain inccompetence ? Either way, this type of scoring happens an awful lot and i wondered what your thoughts were on the subject and how you personally score a fight ?

[fightscorecollector]

the crowd could have an influence , look at the crowd in the leonard vs hagler fight....as leonard picked up the points early the crowd got louder

but

in the chisora vs helenius fight....when helenius threw a punch even if it hit the gloves..the crowd cheers loudly

very good thread mate

ps: leonard 115-113 and chisora 116-112 was my scores from memory

[Quixall]

I've said it before, but I'd like to see round majority scoring, see how that works.

There's one master scorecard, to win the round you need to have the round scored to you by two judges.

Sounds a good idea Livingston.

[Tomasino]

Hi Quixall, good thread. I honestly believe corruption plays a huge part. When you look into the lives and careers of the big power brokers in boxing its clear they are very intelligent criminals. The fact that promoters pay the judges and referees directly and organise travel and accommodation says it all, to me anyway.

I own and operate a small construction firm and also have a small call centre. To get things done brown envelopes are required almost monthly. That's just in straight business.

Nobody can tell me a shady set up like boxing isn't as bad or worse. I love to watch the great fights but throughout boxing history the set up and business side has stunk to the high heavens.


I hoped when Oscar, Shaeffer, Bernard and yes, even Hatton and Haye got involved it would be for the good of the sport. How silly I was LOL. Money money money.

[Adamj1987]

I've said it before, but I'd like to see round majority scoring, see how that works.

There's one master scorecard, to win the round you need to have the round scored to you by two judges.

Sounds a good idea Livingston.

X2

[dondada]

Just to offer a bit of possibly naive balance, if one looked at it statistically, I suspect very few cards are suspect. Of those that are, some aren't really when you look at them a bit more closely. One judge giving three close rounds the opposite to his two colleagues looks bad but is justifiable.

[greenyox3]

SPOILER ALERT














Fook me, I've just watched Rios-Abril. I can't believe that any judge could be that incompetent (and here are 2). Which just leaves corruption. Abril completely schooled him.

[twenty six]

I'm in no way looking to justify some score cards, or suggesting that on occasions there may be an undercurrent, but the positioning of Judges right on the apron has always baffled me.
I've often watched a fight close up from ringside, and been perplexed when the result's announced, only to watch it back from the comfort of the settee and from a totally different angle and reached a different conclusion.
In fact the scoring I guess could be affected by which apron of the ring you're sat at.
A bit like footie really - the ref sees what he sees but once the cameras show the slow mo, countless re runs different angles etc - we conclude the ref's the nob head.
If a fighter hits low on the blind side of the ref is that the ref's fault for missing it ? The focus is on how many times we think they got it wrong - but how many times do they get it right ?
I wonder what the percentage of what we percieve are dodgy cards actually is, when taken as a percentage of the number of fights that go to the scorecards overall.
We can do what Bigmark suggests - but what happens if we still think they're getting it wrong ?
We can have a sanitised sport run by video technology etc etc - but maybe that would remove a bit of the drama ?

[MightyWarrior]

Terrible robbery in Rios/Abril - how those two brass necked judges Glenn Trowbridge and Jerry Roth can get away with that is a disgrace. I love watching Rios, but Abril took him to school last night, he barely won a round. Love to see what the punch stats were, then hear those two judges try to justify there score cards.

[Scottrf]

I've said it before, but I'd like to see round majority scoring, see how that works.

There's one master scorecard, to win the round you need to have the round scored to you by two judges.

Wow, first scoring overhaul I've heard that actually sounds a decent idea.

Would be interesting to see it if actually changed the results of controversial decisions. I suspect it wouldn't, but would give a clear score for SDs.

[greenyox3]

I've said it before, but I'd like to see round majority scoring, see how that works.

There's one master scorecard, to win the round you need to have the round scored to you by two judges.

Does sound like a good concept. There would be a few complications, eg if all 3 judges score a round differently or when to score a round 10-8 or 10-9. But these are only minor obstacles that could be worked out.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Terrible robbery in Rios/Abril - how those two brass necked judges Glenn Trowbridge and Jerry Roth can get away with that is a disgrace. I love watching Rios, but Abril took him to school last night, he barely won a round. Love to see what the punch stats were, then hear those two judges try to justify there score cards.

They would say 'compubox isn't how you score rounds.'

[wadey]

I think they should announce the scores like they do at some fights in Germany after every other round. At least then it gives the boxers an indication of whether they need to gamble or just carrying jabbing for there tactical points victory.

[ArtOfWar]

I can quite easily see how you get wide scorecards considering each round is scored individually. Two fighters might be in a very compeitive fight, but if fighter A is that slight bit better than fighter B in most of the rounds the scores can end up looking very one sided.

The major problem with boxing judges is not that, it's that they just tally the wrong scores to begin with. It comes down to a mixture of incompetence and corruption.

[bobmee]

"I've said it before, but I'd like to see round majority scoring, see how that works.

There's one master scorecard, to win the round you need to have the round scored to you by two judges."
*****************************************************

New Jersey tried this a while back, maybe the late 90s, and dumped it fairly quickly. Can't remember why.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I feel that there are two major issues that need resolving.

1 Judges need to be sound isolated from the crowd - this undoubtedly has an influence on the judges as it is often hard for them to see whether or not a shot has landed from their position, and if the partisan crowd roars, they are going to think it is a scoring shot.

2 Aggression seems to be rewarded far too often, whether it is effective or not.

In addition, judges should either watch the fight from TV, as the audience at home has a far better view than the judges - and this is beyond doubt, I've sat right behind the judges and had a terrible view.

Either that, or give them umpire style chairs - above the ring apron a few feet.

[nh1]

I think they should announce the scores like they do at some fights in Germany after every other round. At least then it gives the boxers an indication of whether they need to gamble or just carrying jabbing for there tactical points victory.

This isn't a good idea, because the judges are then influenced by their colleagues' scores as they are read out. The point is (or should be) that each judge gives an independent view, unaffected by the scores of their colleagues.

What would be nice would be if judges who are consistently on the money--it was agreed that John Keane's scoring of a big fight in the U.S. recently (can't recall which) was spot-on, for instance--got more gigs.

And more re-training for those who are way out.

[nh1]

Having made my points above about enhancing judging...

I'm sure I wasn't alone in the view that we have now seen two awful verdicts go the way of fighters--Manny and Rios--from a very powerful promotional stable.

Scurrilous thoughts, perhaps; but whether the thoughts are right or wrong the worrying thing is that I had them.

As several commentators have said, all of this makes boxing ever-harder to defend against the naysayers.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think they should announce the scores like they do at some fights in Germany after every other round. At least then it gives the boxers an indication of whether they need to gamble or just carrying jabbing for there tactical points victory.

This isn't a good idea, because the judges are then influenced by their colleagues' scores as they are read out. The point is (or should be) that each judge gives an independent view, unaffected by the scores of their colleagues.

What would be nice would be if judges who are consistently on the money--it was agreed that John Keane's scoring of a big fight in the U.S. recently (can't recall which) was spot-on, for instance--got more gigs.

And more re-training for those who are way out.

So isolate the judges from the announcement of the scores.

[squiggy]

I feel that there are two major issues that need resolving.

1 Judges need to be sound isolated from the crowd - this undoubtedly has an influence on the judges as it is often hard for them to see whether or not a shot has landed from their position, and if the partisan crowd roars, they are going to think it is a scoring shot.

2 Aggression seems to be rewarded far too often, whether it is effective or not.

In addition, judges should either watch the fight from TV, as the audience at home has a far better view than the judges - and this is beyond doubt, I've sat right behind the judges and had a terrible view.

Either that, or give them umpire style chairs - above the ring apron a few feet.

I justify my own preference for aggression like this... :
If you're the fighter being aggressive, and I'm slipping and dodging and making you look like a clumsy fool, I still have to do enough to win the round. In other words, I don't think I would award the (mythical?) Willie Pep without-throwing-a-single-punch round.
It's always interesting to me, all the people who think that JMM-Pac 3 or Mayweather-DLH were total shutouts. One consequence of saying that is that you think the defensive fighter won some of those rounds while accomplishing almost nothing offensively. Neither JMM nor Mayweather were peppering the offensive guy with meaningful counterpunches in every single round; in each case, I was of the opinion that they were leaving long stretches in between meaningful offense.
Slick defense is nice, but why is it so obviously better than ineffective aggression, in the absence of other decisive factors?

[Tomasino]

"Slick defense is nice, but why is it so obviously better than ineffective aggression, in the absence of other decisive factors?"



The answer is in your wording; ineffective. Rendered so by effective defense.