JOHNSON SORE LOSER

[SticknMove]

I totally disagree with that statement Terrence. If a round is so close that it is very difficult to find a winner, then in my book it should be a 10-10. Using this system, the guy who wins the most round clearest will win the fight, which I think is fairer and more representative of the contest as a whole. There are too many fights where the bout is decided on people just shading very close rounds where very little happens. It's the 'swing' rounds which often determine the outcome. If 10-8 rounds were given for any very decisive round it would be different, but they are hardly ever used without a knockdown, and often 10-9 does not relfect how dominant a fighter is. If a fighter wins 6 rounds clearly, then fades in the latter half, and maybe shades some, maybe not, it could easily easily be a draw. This seems to me very unfair.

I think you're spot there mate.

For arguments sake, if fighter A wins 6 rounds clearly, having fighter B in trouble in the process, but fighter B nicks 6 close rounds and gets a draw, this can not be a true reflection of the fight as a whole.

I think rounds where there is nothing in them should be scored 10-10, as the current rules stands. But there is a case to be made for guys who win a round big getting a 10-8, regardless of a knockdown. The latter would imply a change in directive to the judges and lead to wider scoring margins in some fights that a lot of people would object to, initially.

A fairer system should be implemented. How it would affect Woods' preposterous 3 and 4 round winning margin on Saturday Night is anyones guessl.

[Autobarn]

You can always find a winner in a round.

10-10 should only be used when a point is deducted and you score the round even in the normal columns (afterall there is a reason for the deduction column), it negates the point loss though and the judges should score a round with an infringement 10-9 or 10-8 and below.

I'm an excellent judge and I scored it 7-5 for Woods. Perhaps this strand should be locked now my score is in

I had it around 7-5 just about. or maybe 6-5-1 for Woods. At the end I was sure he'd won.

But I disagree about always finding a winner in a round. If a round is very even then it's even. But the problem is, when there's loads of even rounds. When you feel like scoring more than 3 rounds even it sort of makes you feel guilty, like you should be able to look hard & find a difference.

I have no problem with even rd just as long as there's not too many.

IMo it's easier to spot a subtle difference as a fight goes later, i.e. one guy hurting the other more, one bloke improving his rhythm every round, one fighter having increasing purpose/method in his boxing etc

[jamesmcdonnell]

The problem with what you are postulating Terrence is that it is far too ephemeral and nebulous a system. It's far too open to interpretation and self justifiying scorecards where a judge goes into a fight believing fighter A is going to prevail.

Why credit a guy for doing fook all?

It's different if one guy is winging loads of shots and the other guy is making him miss and making him expend energy, sure, why not credit the guy with the good defence.

There are plenty of fights where both fighters throw about 5 meaningful shots a piece, in those cases, I say make it a 10-10.

I know for a fact that Vegas judges are unofficially told to NEVER score even rounds, even though it is within the rulebook to do so.

[stujones]

I mean, how many rounds did you think Johnson won CLEARLY and without any doubt?

James, I know the question wasn't aimed at me but a good one nevertheless.

I have been viewing the various threads and from what I can see the rounds that are beyond doubt of the forum members are these

Johnson
1, 4, 5, 6, 9. (these have been the 5 rounds who everyone who scored it 7-5 to Woods gave to Johnson) - others gave more to Johnson.

Woods
7, 11, 12 (maybe 3 aswell).

[Southpaw Stylist]

The problem with what you are postulating

Unexpected word there, from you.

(No offence).

[Autobarn]

You can always find a winner in a round.

10-10 should only be used when a point is deducted and you score the round even in the normal columns (afterall there is a reason for the deduction column), it negates the point loss though and the judges should score a round with an infringement 10-9 or 10-8 and below.

I'm an excellent judge and I scored it 7-5 for Woods. Perhaps this strand should be locked now my score is in

I had it around 7-5 just about. or maybe 6-5-1 for Woods. At the end I was sure he'd won.

But I disagree about always finding a winner in a round. If a round is very even then it's even. But the problem is, when there's loads of even rounds. When you feel like scoring more than 3 rounds even it sort of makes you feel guilty, like you should be able to look hard & find a difference.

I have no problem with even rd just as long as there's not too many.

IMo it's easier to spot a subtle difference as a fight goes later, i.e. one guy hurting the other more, one bloke improving his rhythm every round, one fighter having increasing purpose/method in his boxing etc

Sure 'Maussa, I mean don't get me wrong, I don't ban people from my hosue if they score an even round. I just feel that there is always a winner. Maybe in neither guy moved or threw a shot and just stood there staring one another down, actually I'd go against the guy who blinked first

I mean how can something be very even? That would mean it was obvious it was even one way or another so something, or nothing, must have happened! If it compells you to go 10-10 there will be something there that can make it 10-9. One guy will be negating the other.

if one man is negating the other but not scoring adequately, it's hard to score for him.

at the end of the day, you have to look hard to find a winner. you have to be able to tell the difference. however, if there is no worthwhile difference, you have to go even. like i say, as a fight goes on it's easier to find the difference. more likely for someone to have found a rhythm, for another fighter to be breaking down, etc. Nothing wrong with even rounds but if you scored ten even rounds then it would be ridiculous. so the line has to be drawn.

but there is always the problem. What if neither guy deserves it & the judge gives it to the fighter who throws a shite shoeshine flurry that misses but which might look impressive from a certain angle ie behind would be heartbreaking for the wrong person to get it

[jamesmcdonnell]

The problem with what you are postulating Terrence is that it is far too ephemeral and nebulous a system. It's far too open to interpretation and self justifiying scorecards where a judge goes into a fight believing fighter A is going to prevail.

Why credit a guy for doing fook all?

It's different if one guy is winging loads of shots and the other guy is making him miss and making him expend energy, sure, why not credit the guy with the good defence.

There are plenty of fights where both fighters throw about 5 meaningful shots a piece, in those cases, I say make it a 10-10.

I know for a fact that Vegas judges are unofficially told to NEVER score even rounds, even though it is within the rulebook to do so.

I see it as a more concrete way of scoring. You have to get off the fence and really apply a few levels of scoring in order to make sure you get the 10-9 or lower. It doesn't predispose you, being able to go 10-10 would as it can promote laziness. If you give three or maybe even four 10-10 rounds a guy can win a fight 5-3, he would barely scrape a draw under more stringent scoring if he was a little less effective in his drawn rounds. Guys could work rounds then kill other ones with defence.

One way it will work is that out of five meaningful shots you can see which fighter worked them better and how it fits into his overall pattern during that round.

Equally in action-packed rounds you lose a grasp of the puches landed and look instead for which guy was forced to disengage most often and how he did so, did he retreat of get pushed back?

I'd heard that about the NSAC, they contravene their ruling on this issue.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-467. ... C467Sec612

It clearly says an even round can be given.

I like this breakdown and wish more judges would clarify the criteria and maybe have meetings about bringing the scoring into line. Get a solid base then start to apply interpretation if need be, but it will anchored scoring.

http://www.secondsout.com/Ringside/mave ... 8&cs=12461

I spoke with a guy who is a prominent las vegas judge about scoring. He initially talked about how 10 10 rounds were unneccesary. When I then emailed him privately about this, he basically told me that scoring 10-10 round was more tha his job was worth, because the Nevada commission would not appoint him for any high profile fights as they don't like them.

If the scoring system in boxing was used better, with a 10-8 round being given for a very dominant round with no knockdowns.

There can of course be problems if someone scores too many 10-10 rounds, but I still think this is better than the current system where almost every winning round is a 10-9 and nobody is using 10-10 rounds or 10-8 rounds unless there is a knockdown. Judges are afraid to use either because any judge whose scoring differs from the median scoring by more than 5% risks being dropped as a high profile judge for big fights.

[Southpaw Stylist]

10-10 rounds SHOULD be used though, in cases where, say the round is a complete brawl and for example, both fighters go down an equal number of times.

How else could you decide a round like that? The best way is just to nullify both efforts.