Scoring half a point?

[tigermoth87]

Anyone able to answer for me what circumstances cause half a point to get awarded?

Was looking at Darleys Perez's record and he got a win over Lopez that was scored 117 1/2, 116 1/2, 117 1/2

Curious as to what gets a boxer half a point scored by every judge.

[crusader]

Half point scoring is fairly common in some South American countries, I think Argentina in particular . I believe it is meant to give judges another way of distinguishing between close and one-sided rounds

[davie]

I like it. How many times have you found yourself tempted to score one 10-10, when you were just slightly leaning towards one fighter.
Or giving a round to someone in a real close one.

If 10-8 is for a KD or an utter pasting then you literally have 10-9 to cover every other type of round from exceedingly close to very one sided, with nothing to distiguish between them.

The half point is a great idea!

[orbtastic]

in british boxing you used to get scored half a point for a round instead of a full point I think it changed in the 80's .not sure if that's any help

Didn't they have quarter points in title fights prior to that?

[Ambling Alp II]

I like it. How many times have you found yourself tempted to score one 10-10, when you were just slightly leaning towards one fighter.
Or giving a round to someone in a real close one.

If 10-8 is for a KD or an utter pasting then you literally have 10-9 to cover every other type of round from exceedingly close to very one sided, with nothing to distiguish between them.

The half point is a great idea!

I guess the 1/2 point is a great idea given the way rounds are judged. As you mentioned, it's only 10-8 when there is a knockdown or one guy batters the other guy around.

What would be great is rounds where a guy didn't hurt the other guy or knocked him down, but simply clearly wins the round, he would win the round 10-8.
If he batters him around or scores a knockdown, then it becomes 10-7.

[APerno]

I like it. How many times have you found yourself tempted to score one 10-10, when you were just slightly leaning towards one fighter.
Or giving a round to someone in a real close one.

If 10-8 is for a KD or an utter pasting then you literally have 10-9 to cover every other type of round from exceedingly close to very one sided, with nothing to distiguish between them.

The half point is a great idea!

Disagree - It is easy to fix without going to half points - they already have judges who have screwed up results because they could not add correctly - why not gain the advantage of a half-point by just switching to a "five point must" system and actually using all five points.

5-4 close round
5-3 pasting; no KD
5-2 one KD
5-1 two KDs

Now instead of a 10-9 round giving the round loser 90% of the winner's score, a 5-4 round only gives the loser 80% of the winner's score, (for a close round) and a round loser who gets 'pasted' - with a 5-3 round, only receives 60% of the round winner's score. - This is a better set of possible % to differentiate no KD rounds; rounds that are currently lumped together as 10-9.

You can gain all of the advantages of a half-point round without complicating the math, and you gain a better % ratio for round winners and round losers.

[Ambling Alp II]

By paste him, you mean "hurt him, right?
It still doesn't address the biggest problem: If one guy clearly outboxes the other for three minutes but doesn't hurt him, it still would be 5-4 (10-9 on the ten-point must) Yet if it's really close but one guy lands a couple of clean punches right before the bell, it also is 5-4.

We ought to be make sure that there is a clear difference.

[davie]

By paste him, you mean "hurt him, right?
It still doesn't address the biggest problem: If one guy clearly outboxes the other for three minutes but doesn't hurt him, it still would be 5-4 (10-9 on the ten-point must) Yet if it's really close but one guy lands a couple of clean punches right before the bell, it also is 5-4.

We ought to be make sure that there is a clear difference.

I mean a thoroughly one sided round. That might be open to interpretation and that's the difficulty, but there has to be someway to differentiate between a close one and a wide one

[davie]

I like it. How many times have you found yourself tempted to score one 10-10, when you were just slightly leaning towards one fighter.
Or giving a round to someone in a real close one.

If 10-8 is for a KD or an utter pasting then you literally have 10-9 to cover every other type of round from exceedingly close to very one sided, with nothing to distiguish between them.

The half point is a great idea!

Disagree - It is easy to fix without going to half points - they already have judges who have screwed up results because they could not add correctly - why not gain the advantage of a half-point by just switching to a "five point must" system and actually using all five points.

5-4 close round
5-3 pasting; no KD
5-2 one KD
5-1 two KDs

Now instead of a 10-9 round giving the round loser 90% of the winner's score, a 5-4 round only gives the loser 80% of the winner's score, (for a close round) and a round loser who gets 'pasted' - with a 5-3 round, only receives 60% of the round winner's score. - This is a better set of possible % to differentiate no KD rounds; rounds that are currently lumped together as 10-9.

You can gain all of the advantages of a half-point round without complicating the math, and you gain a better % ratio for round winners and round losers.

I won't argue with you, that looks a good set up too and as you say gives wider margins and greater deductions for fighters losing rounds (as it stands you could be comprehensively outboxed, land nothing and be hurt in a round and still gain 90% of the dominant opponents score.)

Whether it's half rounds or this system, i simply feel there has to be a better way of scoring fights that does more to recognise the degree of winning in a round, that the current system does not recognise.
I've found myself scoring so many fights and saying "he won on points but it didn't feel like he won the fight" or "I've given that by a complete landslide because he narrowly won every round and the opponents good effort has gone unrecognised!

[APerno]

I like it. How many times have you found yourself tempted to score one 10-10, when you were just slightly leaning towards one fighter.
Or giving a round to someone in a real close one.

If 10-8 is for a KD or an utter pasting then you literally have 10-9 to cover every other type of round from exceedingly close to very one sided, with nothing to distiguish between them.

The half point is a great idea!

Disagree - It is easy to fix without going to half points - they already have judges who have screwed up results because they could not add correctly - why not gain the advantage of a half-point by just switching to a "five point must" system and actually using all five points.

5-4 close round
5-3 pasting; no KD
5-2 one KD
5-1 two KDs

Now instead of a 10-9 round giving the round loser 90% of the winner's score, a 5-4 round only gives the loser 80% of the winner's score, (for a close round) and a round loser who gets 'pasted' - with a 5-3 round, only receives 60% of the round winner's score. - This is a better set of possible % to differentiate no KD rounds; rounds that are currently lumped together as 10-9.

You can gain all of the advantages of a half-point round without complicating the math, and you gain a better % ratio for round winners and round losers.

I won't argue with you, that looks a good set up too and as you say gives wider margins and greater deductions for fighters losing rounds (as it stands you could be comprehensively outboxed, land nothing and be hurt in a round and still gain 90% of the dominant opponents score.)

Whether it's half rounds or this system, i simply feel there has to be a better way of scoring fights that does more to recognise the degree of winning in a round, that the current system does not recognise.
I've found myself scoring so many fights and saying "he won on points but it didn't feel like he won the fight" or "I've given that by a complete landslide because he narrowly won every round and the opponents good effort has gone unrecognised!

I always felt that a good example of this problem was Camacho-Rosario - use either a LIBERAL '10 Must' system or my five point system and you get a different outcome in the scoring (I think, depends on how you score it lol) - but Rosario would have won several rounds 5-3 while Camacho's were all 5-4 rounds (or 10-8 Rosario vs. 10-9 for Camacho) - I believe this fight is a 'poster-child' for the argument; I walked away feeling that Rosario won the fight, but Hector got the necessary scores and won the boxing match '10-9.'

[davie]

I've often used the first Pacquiao vs Bradley fight.
For me (and anyone with eyes) it was a clear Pacquiao win. I had it 7-5 to Manny but it could have been wider and it certainly didn't have the feel of a fight with only a 2 point difference (let alone 115-113 Bradley)

But when the extensive post mortum began and I really thought about the way it was scored I could see how the current scoring system would allow such a miscarriage of justice.

The fight broke down into two neat sections. There were 5 absolute stick on Pacquiao rounds. No one in their right mind could have scored them otherwise.
Then there were 7 close rounds. I scored 5 of them to Bradley and 2 of them to Pacquiao. I preferred a lot on Bradley's work in these rounds and lent towards him in 5 of them. None of those rounds were decisive, I don't think there was a round in the fight where I remember thinking "Bradley took that by a distance" and I couldn't have complained if some of those were 10-10 or even scored opposite mine.

So in thinking that, with those 7 fairly tight rounds, depending on how you scored them, in the extreme circumstances you could score that fight anywhere from 120-108 Pacquiao (which would have been extremely harsh on Bradley) or as Duane Ford and the genius CJ Ross scored it 115-113 Bradley (again a ridiculous score.)

It's been a while since I watched it and I've no doubt someone's blood is boiling reading this because there was a certain round was a "100% bradley round" or something to that effect. I can't remember it that well, but you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.
Clear decisive rounds being scored the same way as a very nearly 10-10 round, puts the judges in a position where these aberrations can occur. We hold the judges accountable for these ridiculous results, but it is the system which is at fault. I've no doubt Duane Ford looked at that card afterwards and said to himself, that doesn't feel right, that felt like a Pacquiao win.
But the system forced him to score all of these rounds 10-9 and pick the person he felt had the upperhand in them.

CJ Ross probably spent the rest of the day wondering how the fornicate she managed get dressed and tie her shoelaces in the morning?

[crusader]

For me an example is Huck-Povetkin. Huck won about 5 rounds big, Povetkin won 1 round big, and the rest were close. Huck clearly did more damage overall and it felt like a fight he won, yet going round by round I actually had Povetkin 1 up at the end, as I thought his more consistant workrate allowed him to win most of the close rounds by very small margins.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Anyone able to answer for me what circumstances cause half a point to get awarded?

- Sure, half points designed by half baked for half wit judges. I'm with Perno, but I'd go further.

Officiating the biggest reasons fans fled boxing. Other pro sports have number totals they can add up. There's a winner whereas boxing deducts inflated points to declare the loser with winner by default of less deductions declared after the contest in a private huddle of jerks.

Ass backward. Ditch the must system, start scorin even rounds zero and stop awarding automatic 10-8s to a guy beaten badly but scores a flash KD. Box better and win 1-0 rd. Each KD worth a point and a foul awards the point to the fouled. Have scoreboards for easy viewing, transparency. Dump the punch monkey frauds and half the half wit announcers with a mute option for them and volume enhancement for the ring action. Now we got a red blooded sport closer to fight to the finish origins that didn't need no stinkin' judges.

[davie]

Anyone able to answer for me what circumstances cause half a point to get awarded?

- Sure, half points designed by half baked for half wit judges. I'm with Perno, but I'd go further.

Officiating the biggest reasons fans fled boxing. Other pro sports have number totals they can add up. There's a winner whereas boxing deducts inflated points to declare the loser with winner by default of less deductions declared after the contest in a private huddle of jerks.

Ass backward. Ditch the must system, start scorin even rounds zero and stop awarding automatic 10-8s to a guy beaten badly but scores a flash KD. Box better and win 1-0 rd. Each KD worth a point and a foul awards the point to the fouled. Have scoreboards for easy viewing, transparency. Dump the punch monkey frauds and half the half wit announcers with a mute option for them and volume enhancement for the ring action. Now we got a red blooded sport closer to fight to the finish origins that didn't need no stinkin' judges.

And get those Marquis of Queensbury rules binned too!

[Cap]

I'm with Al on this. There is plenty of room in 5 point system to cover everything. You score 5-5 if you can't pick one guy over the other. You score 5-4 if one guy edged the other out. You score 5-3 if fighter A easily dominates fighter B but doesn't score a knockdown. You score 5-2 if fighter A dominates and knocks fighter B down. You score 5-1 if fighter A is clearly beating the living bejasus out of fighter B short of the ref stopping the fight. If fighter A dominates fighter B but fighter B manages to knock fighter A down, you score it 5-4 for fighter A. A knockdown shouldn't outweigh a guy dominating for two thirds of a round.

[davie]

I'm with Al on this. There is plenty of room in 5 point system to cover everything. You score 5-5 if you can't pick one guy over the other. You score 5-4 if one guy edged the other out. You score 5-3 if fighter A easily dominates fighter B but doesn't score a knockdown. You score 5-2 if fighter A dominates and knocks fighter B down. You score 5-1 if fighter A is clearly beating the living bejasus out of fighter B short of the ref stopping the fight. If fighter A dominates fighter B but fighter B manages to knock fighter A down, you score it 5-4 for fighter A. A knockdown shouldn't outweigh a guy dominating for two thirds of a round.

The more I look at it the more I like this system
I would probably remove knockdowns from the set scores though, as that is the problem, setting a 10-8 against the guy that gets knocked down can rob him of all his hard work if he has been dominating a round.

we could have the scores (5-4, 5-3 etc) based on the performance in the round, then have points deducted per knockdown
So a guy that was perhaps winning a round heavily, in a 5-2 kind of round, gets put on his arse with a flash knockdown, gets scored 4-2?

[APerno]

I'm with Al on this. There is plenty of room in 5 point system to cover everything. You score 5-5 if you can't pick one guy over the other. You score 5-4 if one guy edged the other out. You score 5-3 if fighter A easily dominates fighter B but doesn't score a knockdown. You score 5-2 if fighter A dominates and knocks fighter B down. You score 5-1 if fighter A is clearly beating the living bejasus out of fighter B short of the ref stopping the fight. If fighter A dominates fighter B but fighter B manages to knock fighter A down, you score it 5-4 for fighter A. A knockdown shouldn't outweigh a guy dominating for two thirds of a round.

The more I look at it the more I like this system
I would probably remove knockdowns from the set scores though, as that is the problem, setting a 10-8 against the guy that gets knocked down can rob him of all his hard work if he has been dominating a round.

we could have the scores (5-4, 5-3 etc) based on the performance in the round, then have points deducted per knockdown
So a guy that was perhaps winning a round heavily, in a 5-2 kind of round, gets put on his arse with a flash knockdown, gets scored 4-2?

Yes - that is an interesting way to adjust for a flash KN - there is much more flexibility in the scoring if you get rid of the "Must" system - but you have to wonder what some of these judges would do if you made the system that flexible/complicated.