Improved Scoring Systems

[Grilling Machine]

I thought about a new scoring system again today, 'cause I know my first idea was too fussy and open to allegations of corruption.

Instead of 10-9, I'd award 0, 1 or 2 at the end of each round. 1 additional point for every knockdown, and 1-point deductions from the ref. The idea is to reward boxers in the grey area, hence the 1 in-between 0 and 2. So a weak round scores 0 and a strong round scores 2 (much the same as 10-9), but the 1's available for both a decent offensive round as well as a standout defensive round.

In this way, we could award 2-1 if Boxer A landed some big shots but Boxer B otherwise avoided a ton of punishment with excellent defence. Equally, you could award a round to the defender 1-0 if they made their man miss and tire without success.

Any ideas for a better system?

[Tarkus]

Scoring offense and defense is unnecessary, it is open for interpretation and bias, not to mention fictional ring generalship. They should only score damage given. That accounts for defense, offense and everything else that matters in the fight. Damage should be assessed as a product of number of punches landed and the power of those punches.

10 point system is fine. What needs to changed is scoring of close rounds. They should be scored even. This way judges scorecards will become more aligned with each other as well as with the viewing public. Because everyone can score a clear round.

So two changes should happen:
1. Score only damage.
2. Score close rounds even.

[Grilling Machine]

fictional ring generalship. They should only score damage given.

Objectively correct, of course, but no love for the Whitakers?!

I would argue that 10-9's unnecessarily high numbering, though. It could easily be replaced with 1-0, and 1-1 for drawn rounds. More drawn rounds, I agree. But in that case we'd need a solution to avoid too many draws. Maybe in the case of a draw, each judge is allowed to declare an overall winner if they want to?

number of punches landed and the power of those punches.

This is where it can get subjective. If Foreman takes ten power punches and hardly flinches, but wobbles his opponent with a single punch... Because power doesn't account for resistance; number of punches for efficacy. It's still right to score that round to Foreman's opponent - I'm not arguing your point, but in a less ferocious fight that's close, these indefinables creep into the scoring and subjectivism's almost inevitable.

Calzaghe-Reid's one of the classic examples, with opinions divided everywhere you look. I felt Reid shaded it on points while never commanding, and Calzaghe - although eating the occasional shot - gave the impression of a fairly comfortable champion.

[Emmseegee]

For a long time I have thought that boxing should have a set amount of judges and each judge is told to score using one factor.

Judge A - Ring generalship
Judge B - Effective aggression
Judge C - Defence
Judge D, E...... However many categories are required.

* All cards for a particular round go in favour of a fighter who scores a genuine knockdown.

This is the only way i could see the scoring being consistent, just now its too open to opinions and manipulation. 'Oh the judges here like to see aggression' etc etc. If a judge gives a sh1t score card then people say things like, he must have been scoring based on 'insert reason here'

If each judge had a set thing to look for and the final score was taken from a combined total of their scores then the scoring would be more controllable. A judge would then be 100% accountable for every scorecard he was responsible for. Could easily sit someone down after a fight and say that they were employed to score ring generalship so how could they possibly have scored it against the guy who controlled the fight etc etc.

Obv thats not a lot of detail, how it would be inplemented would need a lot of consideration but once it was up and running then corruption and incompetence would be one step closer to extinction.

[tigermoth87]

I'd like to see points awarded for knockdowns, just to try to stop borefest fights like Quigg vs Frampton where both fighters barely threw a punch for the first 6 or 7 rounds. If there was more of a reward for getting a knockdown then it might encourage a bit more action.

[Tarkus]

no love for the Whitakers?!

No problem with Whitakers. Its just, if you have a superior defense you will suffer less damage. Why score defense again, its redundant. This is fight not a dance contest.

I would argue that 10-9's unnecessarily high numbering, though. It could easily be replaced with 1-0, and 1-1 for drawn rounds.

This is a decorative improvement, some might like 120 minus system others 12 plus.

More drawn rounds, I agree. But in that case we'd need a solution to avoid too many draws. Maybe in the case of a draw, each judge is allowed to declare an overall winner if they want to?

But why? If fight is close make it a draw. Splinting even fights on a judges whim is same as flipping a coin and its inherently unfair. Nothing is wrong with the draw.

number of punches landed and the power of those punches.

This is where it can get subjective. If Foreman takes ten power punches and hardly flinches, but wobbles his opponent with a single punch... Because power doesn't account for resistance; number of punches for efficacy. It's still right to score that round to Foreman's opponent - I'm not arguing your point, but in a less ferocious fight that's close, these indefinables creep into the scoring and subjectivism's almost inevitable.

Someone getting hurt is exactly what we want to be scoring, regardless of if it is from power of punches or punch resistance. KO is a KO isnt it. Power vs volume will always be tricky to score and some subjectivity is unavoidable but it would be substantially lower then what is now. And lets not forget the second principle that the close rounds, in other words, when in doubt, will be scored even.