What do you think is the best scoring system available?

[yancey]

How many judges should there be?

Should the referee also keep a card?

Should the scoring be known as the fight happens, especially in championship fights?

[handsofstone]

Hasn't one of the ABC's started using half point scoring again? I'm not a fan of that

[scallum]

Open scoring afte ever round

[Ambling Alp II]

I think it would be better with 5 judges. Mathematically, the more judges, the less likely of a horrible decision.

Could go either way with the referee scoring the fight. He usually (but not always) has the best views on how clean punches are landing. However, can he really be judging the fight well and do a good job as a referee at the same time?

The 10 point must is better than the rounds system. The probably really isn't the system itself but the way that it is used. Most rounds end 10-9. The problem is that most rounds aren't that close. Even if one fighter doesn't hurt the other guy, but outboxes him badly, the round is still scored 10-9.
If there is a knockdown, it is almost always scored 10-8; whether it's a knockdown where a guy is badly hurt or a flash knockdown. Even if one guy is really having a good round, then gets knocked down at the end of the round, he loses it 10-8.
Some judges will socre a round 10-9 if there is no knockdown but one guy hurts the other and dominates the round; some judges still score it 10-9.

Really, there should rounds scored 10-8 or 10-7 without knockdowns. Technically, the loser of a round could get one point. Never have seen a guy get less than 6 even when he gets decked 3 times.

At first glance open scoring during the fight seems to make sense. The problem is if one guy gets far enough ahead, he will probably run and/or clinch the last few rounds.

[Boilermaker]

i think that open scoring is a must. I know it would allow the crowd to influence the fight a little bit, by putting pressure on judges, but if that is the case, then so be it. At least fighters know where they stand and have no excuses for not pulling out the knock out blows. Alternatively, if they think they are cruising to a comfortable points decision by jabbing and running (for example) and this is not impressing the judges then it gives them the chance to change up their tactics to something which might be more suitable.

I would also agree with a further 2 judges. with 5 judges, there is less chance of getting things wrong.

Another very important point about open judges is that the judging will be known by the commentators. For a start, the blatant bad calls will be criticised during the calls, and will stand out. I think that this will make the poor cards less common. Secondly, because the cards are known, it will mean that the commentators will not have a situation (which they often do) where they incorrectly support the losing fighter as being well ahead, which often gives people the incorrect impression that a close decision is worse than it usually is. I think that open scoring would greatly help improve the image of the scorecards.

[Controversial]

Open scoring afte ever round

No not a fan, it would affect how some boxers fight. If it's a close fight but the judges have them ahead they are less likely to take chances and go for the points win.

Also it takes the suspense away from the final scorecards being read out if everyone knows who won before they are announced.

[Bobbyptsd]

I don't like open scoring, and I don't like the 10-8 or 7 without a knockdown idea.

Imagine the chaos involving the latter. "That was a 10-8 round"-"No, it was 10-9" "No, it was 10-7".....etc....etc....We're going to wind up with absurd scores, never mind when there is a knockdown or point deduction, or God forbid, both.

"I had Froch winning 117-111" -"Well I had Groves winning 119-109" wouldn't be an unusual thing to hear, it just creates so much room to make things more vague.

I think the system is actually relatively fine as it is, if it's applied right.

[No Tomorrow]

I think 10-10 rounds are underused. There are certain times where it was that even where it's silly to give some one the 10-9 just for the sake of doing so

[Bobbyptsd]

I think 10-10 rounds are underused. There are certain times where it was that even where it's silly to give some one the 10-9 just for the sake of doing so

I do like that direction (or application of something that already exists) better. I think it reflects close fights in a more appropriate way than just throwing even larger point differences in the mix.

[Controversial]

What if they introduced odd number of rounds to cut down on draws, i.e 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 round fights?

[tiny_acres]

Death penalty for all judges that give controversial scoring.Hang a few and the rest will fall in line.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't like open scoring, and I don't like the 10-8 or 7 without a knockdown idea.

Imagine the chaos involving the latter. "That was a 10-8 round"-"No, it was 10-9" "No, it was 10-7".....etc....etc....We're going to wind up with absurd scores, never mind when there is a knockdown or point deduction, or God forbid, both.

"I had Froch winning 117-111" -"Well I had Groves winning 119-109" wouldn't be an unusual thing to hear, it just creates so much room to make things more vague.

I think the system is actually relatively fine as it is, if it's applied right.

But that is assuming that applying it right is scoring every round without a knockdown 10-9. I disagree with that. Think about it.
In round 1, fighter A completely outboxes fighter B for 3 minutes. Does every thing but knock him down. He wins the round 10-9.
Then round 2 is very close, and you give the round to fighter B, 10-9. So after 2 rounds, the fight is 19-19 after two rounds when fighter A should be ahead.

[Ezzard]

All that really matters is that the right man wins.

At the moment the system defines who lost the round more than who won it.

[BoxBuzz]

I think Ref's get a feel for who is dominating the event better than anyone. And what's going on in that ring can be a different story than what the camera's tell us. So those who are close up should be given some slack when they are reporting different than what what those of us further away are taking away from it.

[BoxBuzz]

Another good scoring system is to keep Il Duce's pen as far away from a round tally card as possible.

[gilgamesh]

I think 10-10 rounds are underused. There are certain times where it was that even where it's silly to give some one the 10-9 just for the sake of doing so

There are definitely times when a 10-10 round can be used. There are some cases of fights I've seen where a 10-10 round sometimes just feels unavoidable. I remember the in God awful Chris Byrd vs Davarryl Williamson fight I had about 3 10-10 rounds in there because neither guy did anything to deserve the rounds a lot of the time.

The 1st round of Shumenov vs Hopkins from this past week I thought was a 10-10, and I think I had a 10-10 round in Mosley vs Forrest 2 as well.

[gilgamesh]

I don't really like to use them, but sometimes there's just no way around it to me. Giving the round to one guy or the other in some rounds just feels like bullsh*t.

[Bobbyptsd]

I don't like open scoring, and I don't like the 10-8 or 7 without a knockdown idea.

Imagine the chaos involving the latter. "That was a 10-8 round"-"No, it was 10-9" "No, it was 10-7".....etc....etc....We're going to wind up with absurd scores, never mind when there is a knockdown or point deduction, or God forbid, both.

"I had Froch winning 117-111" -"Well I had Groves winning 119-109" wouldn't be an unusual thing to hear, it just creates so much room to make things more vague.

I think the system is actually relatively fine as it is, if it's applied right.

But that is assuming that applying it right is scoring every round without a knockdown 10-9. I disagree with that. Think about it.
In round 1, fighter A completely outboxes fighter B for 3 minutes. Does every thing but knock him down. He wins the round 10-9.
Then round 2 is very close, and you give the round to fighter B, 10-9. So after 2 rounds, the fight is 19-19 after two rounds when fighter A should be ahead.

Why should he necessarily be ahead? Boxing is scored one round at a time, like 12(or however many rounds) mini-fights. You know that. Why should a guy get a big advantage for winning his round bigger? Does a football team get two goals as opposed to one for the other team because the first was really spectacular?

I mean the way you're talking about it, we may as well just stop judging rounds altogether and just judge the body of the fight.

For what it's worth, and I'm going to contradict myself a bit here, if one guy really wins a round big without a KD, that could already be scored 10-8. We do see that happen and I have no problem with it. But the idea of 10-7, 10-6 and so on in a situation without multiple KD(or point deductions) just seem like it would be vague, as I said.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess it's how you look at things.

In football (soccer), and many other sports you don't people judging the game like you do in boxing. In football/soccer, if one team outplays the other in the first period, they may be up 3-0. The other team might slightly outplay them in the bext period. Then it is 3-1; not 1-1.

I think that how much you dominate a round should count. The 10 point must system was designed to do just that. A 10-9 round should be a close round. We all know that many are not. If we are going to have a system, then use it.

Too much emphasis is put on the knockdown as well. I think what the rest of of the round should count for something. It's also bad when there is a flash knockdown early in the round. Both fighters know the round is gouing to end 10-8 so neither does much for the rest of the round.

It's really too difficult to judge the "body" of the fight, at least a long fight. The judges wouldn't be as accountable either. They could just say so and so won 115-110.

I just think there are major problems with the way fights have been scored. It's mostly do to the customary way that judges are scoring the fight, not the system itself.

[Bobbyptsd]

I guess it's how you look at things.

In football (soccer), and many other sports you don't people judging the game like you do in boxing. In football/soccer, if one team outplays the other in the first period, they may be up 3-0. The other team might slightly outplay them in the bext period. Then it is 3-1; not 1-1.

I think that how much you dominate a round should count. The 10 point must system was designed to do just that. A 10-9 round should be a close round. We all know that many are not. If we are going to have a system, then use it.

Too much emphasis is put on the knockdown as well. I think what the rest of of the round should count for something. It's also bad when there is a flash knockdown early in the round. Both fighters know the round is gouing to end 10-8 so neither does much for the rest of the round.

It's really too difficult to judge the "body" of the fight, at least a long fight. The judges wouldn't be as accountable either. They could just say so and so won 115-110.

I just think there are major problems with the way fights have been scored. It's mostly do to the customary way that judges are scoring the fight, not the system itself.

I agree, at least to an extent, with many of your points here. Particularly the point about the KD meaning too much and the 10-8 round perhaps needing to be applied more often.

But my problem really lies beyond that, if we get to the idea of 10-7-6 rounds without knockdowns. I think it should be applied in a way that either the guy won the round, or he won the round big. Beyond that it would have to come down to KD's or point deductions, in my view.

I'm just imagining the arguments we see on here and the questioning of judges decisions. You brought up an interesting point about the judges not being accountable(if they were to just judge the whole of the fight). Well if all of a sudden you can judge a 4 point swing in one round, it becomes very easy to just influence the card massively the way you want.

Opposed to a 10-8 round and assuming no knockdowns, what would a 10-7 round look like? As opposed to a 10-6 round? Just asking the question is giving me a headache.

[Ambling Alp II]

What actually might work better is the 5 point must. Rounds are never scored worse than 10-6 anyway. It's actually easier to wrap you head around.

If a fighter clearly wins the round (without a KD) he would win 5-3. If he punches the other guy from corner to corner without a KD, then maybe 5-2. (Usually the fight would get stopped anyway.)

5-1 would only be with 3 solid knockdowns.

In a nutshell, it would be better if there was a lot more 10-8 rounds without knockdowns. (Or 5-3 on a 5 point must.)

And it should not be an automatic 10-8 (or 5-3) with a knockdown.

[Bobbyptsd]

What actually might work better is the 5 point must. Rounds are never scored worse than 10-6 anyway. It's actually easier to wrap you head around.

If a fighter clearly wins the round (without a KD) he would win 5-3. If he punches the other guy from corner to corner without a KD, then maybe 5-2. (Usually the fight would get stopped anyway.)

5-1 would only be with 3 solid knockdowns.

In a nutshell, it would be better if there was a lot more 10-8 rounds without knockdowns. (Or 5-3 on a 5 point must.)

And it should not be an automatic 10-8 (or 5-3) with a knockdown.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about above, just using different numbers. I'm picturing people arguing endlessly over what was to one a 5-4 (or 4-5) round, to another a 5-3 round, and to yet another a 5-2 round. Ultimately affecting scorecards immensely.

I know it's clear when you're saying it, and I have no doubt of your intentions. But in practice? Like I said, it would be a headache.

[Roco]

I've advocated 5 judges for a long time. Far more likely to get consistent verdicts IMO.

[Ambling Alp II]

What actually might work better is the 5 point must. Rounds are never scored worse than 10-6 anyway. It's actually easier to wrap you head around.

If a fighter clearly wins the round (without a KD) he would win 5-3. If he punches the other guy from corner to corner without a KD, then maybe 5-2. (Usually the fight would get stopped anyway.)

5-1 would only be with 3 solid knockdowns.

In a nutshell, it would be better if there was a lot more 10-8 rounds without knockdowns. (Or 5-3 on a 5 point must.)

And it should not be an automatic 10-8 (or 5-3) with a knockdown.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about above, just using different numbers. I'm picturing people arguing endlessly over what was to one a 5-4 (or 4-5) round, to another a 5-3 round, and to yet another a 5-2 round. Ultimately affecting scorecards immensely.

I know it's clear when you're saying it, and I have no doubt of your intentions. But in practice? Like I said, it would be a headache.

I don't think it would be a headache at all. It's not that complicated, and would be be much more fair.

Yes people might argue about whether a round should be 5-4 or 5-3, but that isn't any worse than when there is a close round if fighter A should win the round 5-4 or if fighter B should have won the round.

Potentially, judges could have scorecards that vary more than they do now, but that is only if one judge is always giving fighter A the benefit of the doubt while another judge is always giving fighter the benefit of the doubt to fighter B.
(And that would only happen if there are several rounds where it's hard to judge 5-3 or 5-4, which would not happen that often.)