Should be five judges and "winner takes the round" scoring . . . .

[actjac]

. . . Station one judge on each side of the ring and add the referee to the judging equation.. . . . Also go back to a round-by-round scoring system rather than points. . . .Currently it seems that the loser of the round automatically receives 9 points just for getting off of the stool each round.. . . It should change that the winner receives the point for the round and the loser is not given any points.

A 10/9 score is rarely indicative of the true dominance by one boxer over the other.. . . .and five judges are more fair than 3 given that now it only takes one of the three to screw up.

[oogiebe]

. . . Station one judge on each side of the ring and add the referee to the judging equation.. . . . Also go back to a round-by-round scoring system rather than points. . . .Currently it seems that the loser of the round automatically receives 9 points just for getting off of the stool each round.. . . It should change that the winner receives the point for the round and the loser is not given any points.

A 10/9 score is rarely indicative of the true dominance by one boxer over the other.. . . .and five judges are more fair than 3 given that now it only takes one of the three to screw up.

Interesting...if you watched a fight four times from each ringside, you'll see a different fight, thus, I'd support this.

[gilgamesh]

I've never understood since we have a 10 point must system and we have 10 points to work with why they've never chosen to more clearly define the margin by which somebody wins a round.

For instance 10-8 rounds are mostly only ever given out following a knockdown right?

I think 10-9 rounds should be given for close rounds, 10-8 for clear rounds, 10-7 for a knockdown, 10-6 for 2 knockdowns...and so on.

[oogiebe]

I've never understood since we have a 10 point must system and we have 10 points to work with why they've never chosen to more clearly define the margin by which somebody wins a round.

For instance 10-8 rounds are mostly only ever given out following a knockdown right?

I think 10-9 rounds should be given for close rounds, 10-8 for clear rounds, 10-7 for a knockdown, 10-6 for 2 knockdowns...and so on.

Thank God we no longer have Newspaper Decisions.

[gilgamesh]

I've never understood since we have a 10 point must system and we have 10 points to work with why they've never chosen to more clearly define the margin by which somebody wins a round.

For instance 10-8 rounds are mostly only ever given out following a knockdown right?

I think 10-9 rounds should be given for close rounds, 10-8 for clear rounds, 10-7 for a knockdown, 10-6 for 2 knockdowns...and so on.

Thank God we no longer have Newspaper Decisions.

Hell the sport wasn't even legal in a great deal of states in the USA until the 1920's. It could take place, but there were often a whole lot of hoops that people had to jump through. That's why so many of the fighters from before that era have "Newspaper Decisions" and stuff like that because there was no official commission or anybody to render a decision.

Pretty interesting the way the sport has evolved through the ages.

[oogiebe]

I've never understood since we have a 10 point must system and we have 10 points to work with why they've never chosen to more clearly define the margin by which somebody wins a round.

For instance 10-8 rounds are mostly only ever given out following a knockdown right?

I think 10-9 rounds should be given for close rounds, 10-8 for clear rounds, 10-7 for a knockdown, 10-6 for 2 knockdowns...and so on.

Thank God we no longer have Newspaper Decisions.

Hell the sport wasn't even legal in a great deal of states in the USA until the 1920's. It could take place, but there were often a whole lot of hoops that people had to jump through. That's why so many of the fighters from before that era have "Newspaper Decisions" and stuff like that because there was no official commission or anybody to render a decision.

Pretty interesting the way the sport has evolved through the ages.

[Oiky]

Something needs to be done about scoring that's for sure

[oogiebe]

Something needs to be done about scoring that's for sure

It really is...maybe there are too many cousins, aunts and uncles of the alphabet orgs judging fights.

[Stuarty]

If three judges can't get it right most of the time what chance have we got with five!

[oogiebe]

If three judges can't get it right most of the time what chance have we got with five!

LOL!!! 12 monkeys trying to f$ck a football!!!!!

[Stuarty]

Better training and vetting of judges. Also make them publicly explain their scoring if they've made a complete bollocks of it. Fact of the matter is boxing is corrupt at the highest level and with the amount of money involved always will be. The powers that be aren't interested in cleaning the sport up as long as their pockets are being suitably filled!

[oogiebe]

Better training and vetting of judges. Also make them publicly explain their scoring if they've made a complete bollocks of it. Fact of the matter is boxing is corrupt at the highest level and with the amount of money involved always will be. The powers that be aren't interested in cleaning the sport up as long as their pockets are being suitably filled!

Transparency...yes, yes...I see that as a great solution. Judges can be rated and suspended for poor decision making.

[JCS]

I've never understood since we have a 10 point must system and we have 10 points to work with why they've never chosen to more clearly define the margin by which somebody wins a round.

For instance 10-8 rounds are mostly only ever given out following a knockdown right?

I think 10-9 rounds should be given for close rounds, 10-8 for clear rounds, 10-7 for a knockdown, 10-6 for 2 knockdowns...and so on.

Because it allows for too much "play" in the numbers. You know for a fact, judges would use that to their advantage.

[gilgamesh]

I've never understood since we have a 10 point must system and we have 10 points to work with why they've never chosen to more clearly define the margin by which somebody wins a round.

For instance 10-8 rounds are mostly only ever given out following a knockdown right?

I think 10-9 rounds should be given for close rounds, 10-8 for clear rounds, 10-7 for a knockdown, 10-6 for 2 knockdowns...and so on.

Because it allows for too much "play" in the numbers. You know for a fact, judges would use that to their advantage.

Yeah I know.

[oogiebe]

I've never understood since we have a 10 point must system and we have 10 points to work with why they've never chosen to more clearly define the margin by which somebody wins a round.

For instance 10-8 rounds are mostly only ever given out following a knockdown right?

I think 10-9 rounds should be given for close rounds, 10-8 for clear rounds, 10-7 for a knockdown, 10-6 for 2 knockdowns...and so on.

Because it allows for too much "play" in the numbers. You know for a fact, judges would use that to their advantage.

Yeah I know.

I've always wondered why punchstats couldn't be used. You have it broken down by totals; power; body; jabs; %connected, etc. Although there is probably no answer except some crazy technology.

[tiny_acres]

Because it allows for too much "play" in the numbers. You know for a fact, judges would use that to their advantage.

Yeah I know.

I've always wondered why punchstats couldn't be used. You have it broken down by totals; power; body; jabs; %connected, etc. Although there is probably no answer except some crazy technology.

The problem with punch stats are you have one guy land 20 punches with zero damage. Then the other dude lands 2 punches that stagger his opponent
It's just what you like as a judge.

[oogiebe]

Yeah I know.

I've always wondered why punchstats couldn't be used. You have it broken down by totals; power; body; jabs; %connected, etc. Although there is probably no answer except some crazy technology.

The problem with punch stats are you have one guy land 20 punches with zero damage. Then the other dude lands 2 punches that stagger his opponent
It's just what you like as a judge.

We'll never fix it, but something needs to be done.