New Scoring System being tested by AIBA

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 28 May 2007, 00:48

Source: ababoxing.com

Sun May 13, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: Could New Scoring System Rid Corruption?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A boxing vest developed in Australia could revolutionise scoring in the troubled Olympic sport, after the technology was approved for further trials.

Scientists at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) and the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO) have developed a new system, which aims to rid the sport of contentious judging at Olympic and world amateur tournaments.

Sensors located in the lightweight vest, gloves and head protector record blows and points are transmitted via wireless technology to a large screen for viewing by spectators, who also see the target area where the punch was registered, the reports said.

Named the Automated Boxing Scoring System (ABSS), the equipment was developed by AIS and CSIRO researchers, while an Indian manufacturer inserted sensors inside gloves.

Wu Ching-Kuo, the new president of the Amateur Boxing International Association watched a demonstration of the new technology in Bangkok last month during the King's Cup boxing tournament. Following the demonstration, the Australian delegation was given approval to conduct further trials at the AIS.

Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald said Wu also offered to arrange competitive bouts in which scoring would be done simultaneously with the current scoring system and the sensor format. Taiwan's Wu was elected late last year on a mandate of reform following exposure of corrupt judging at the 2004 Athens Olympics and previous Olympics.

The existing scoring system involved judges pressing computer keys to record scoring blows. But there have been claims that the scoring system was vulnerable to corruption, as bribed judges could repeatedly press the key of the favoured boxer.

Professor Allan Hahn, the head of the AIS Applied Research Centre, said he was greatly encouraged by the success of the Bangkok trial, but admitted the system still had glitches, such as the problem of blocked or deflected blows being scored.

"A boxer scores when the glove of one boxer simultaneously impacts with the scoring area of another," Hahn told the newspaper. "A boxer can't hit his own gloves together and score but we still have a problem with blocked blows being registered.

"A CSIRO scientist is working with the group to exclude these punches. We think we are close to a solution to it."

Hahn also conceded the electronics need to be fully resistant to water, given that it is common for trainers to pour substantial volumes of water over boxers between rounds.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 28 May 2007, 22:39

Yeah, sure. No more blows to the face - no sensors there. And how do the sensors know whether or not the blow is legal, i.e., slaps? Can't see it happening.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 28 May 2007, 22:55

I figured they would have to have a special headgear with some type of bar(s) covering the face with sensors in it. I think it is a long way off before it will be perfected, if ever.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 28 May 2007, 23:54

The boxers complain about the headgear now. Can you imagine what they would say about one with bars across the face!!!!!!

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 29 May 2007, 01:34

Yes, it would definitely impair their vision to a certain extent.

Blackeye 84 · Post by **Blackeye 84** » 29 May 2007, 09:24

I would like to see amateur boxing go back to 5 judge paper scoring. I was a firm believer in computer scoring at the start, but now it seems to be very inconsistant. If it was not for those cheaters at the Olympics in 1988, we would not be in this pickle! Seems like the higher level tournaments you go to, the more questionable judging occurs! These are the tournaments that the IOC look at and now they are trying to clean up boxing or get rid of it all together. The fast changes to the scoring system keep everyone confused, even the judges, I am sure they do not know what is supposed to be a scoring blow anymore! At least with paper scoring (and honest judges) the scoring blows are a factor, ring generalship, defence, offence, controling the bout, all come into play and the officials can get real again!

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 29 May 2007, 09:38

Said Blackeye 84,

I would like to see amateur boxing go back to 5 judge paper scoring.

This will never happen. IOC mandated the electronic scoring system and it's here to stay.

At least with paper scoring (and honest judges) the scoring blows are a factor, ring generalship, defence, offence, controling the bout, all come into play and the officials can get real again!

What you have described is the pro criteria in scoring which, of course, has nothing to do with amateur boxing. A scoring punch in amateur boxintg is: a legal effective blow with the weight of the shoulder behind it, landing in the scoring area with the white knuckle surface of the glove. Period. At least, with the computer scoring system, you can actually see what the judges are doing, i.e., how many times they push the button for each boxer, and you can run a cheating report. With the 20-point must system, you have no idea what any judge is thinking - you can 20-19 a person to a win on your scorecard without even counting punches.

emile · Post by **emile** » 29 May 2007, 10:10

Mel,

Why is it that they skipped the in-between step of having computer scoring but each judge having their own total and decisions being made on the same five-judge W/L basis? It seems to me that the computer scoring method is excellent at providing accountability to the old 'paper scoring' but the current requirements to create a scoring punch are occasionally problematic.

I'll admit I know little about the history or current methods of amateur scoring, so I'd be interested in learning more.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 29 May 2007, 10:27

emile wrote:Mel,

Why is it that they skipped the in-between step of having computer scoring but each judge having their own total and decisions being made on the same five-judge W/L basis? It seems to me that the computer scoring method is excellent at providing accountability to the old 'paper scoring' but the current requirements to create a scoring punch are occasionally problematic.

I'll admit I know little about the history or current methods of amateur scoring, so I'd be interested in learning more.

This is exactly the scoring used at tournaments that don't use the computer system such as the National Golden Gloves. Each judge uses individual hand held clickers and counts the scoring blows. Each judge then records the total points for each boxer and if the points are even the judge selects a winner based on the types of factors you discussed. The final score is the number of judges for each boxer - say 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2.

emile · Post by **emile** » 29 May 2007, 10:47

Right - has it always been done as a total of scoring blows, or has there been a time when it was a subjective decision by each judge?

Doing it that way, with computer scoring so that you could analyze the judges scoring clicks, seems better to me - but then I'm not sure how much the current scoring requirements are truly affected by judges being screened, not clicking their button quickly enough etc. Certainly, from a PR standpoint it is going to be a continual talking point when there are televised fights and a clear punch gets landed and nothing happens on the scorecard. I wonder if the TV graphic showed all five judges running totals, if people would be more forgiving. It would certainly put a lot more pressure on each individual judge!

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 29 May 2007, 11:29

emile wrote:Right - has it always been done as a total of scoring blows, or has there been a time when it was a subjective decision by each judge?

Doing it that way, with computer scoring so that you could analyze the judges scoring clicks, seems better to me - but then I'm not sure how much the current scoring requirements are truly affected by judges being screened, not clicking their button quickly enough etc. Certainly, from a PR standpoint it is going to be a continual talking point when there are televised fights and a clear punch gets landed and nothing happens on the scorecard. I wonder if the TV graphic showed all five judges running totals, if people would be more forgiving. It would certainly put a lot more pressure on each individual judge!

Years ago, the scoring was like pro scoring then it went to the 20 point scoring system and the judges were "supposed" to count punches and give the round to boxer A 20-19 if he landed 1-4 more punches in the round, 20-18 if the margin was 5-7 punches, 20-17 if the margin was 8-10 and so on (3 punch increments after the first 4 punches). Judges were supposed to somehow keep a running tally in their heads and then decide what the margin was and put down their score. In most areas it was rare to get anything more than a 20-17 round. With computer scoring we do sometimes see a boxer outscore an opponent by a 20 point margin in 1 round.

The idea of having the 5 judges running totals isn't a bad idea.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 29 May 2007, 15:48

In my opinion, the clicker system does not make the judges accountable because you can't see what they are doing. I've seen very high scores with clickers, to the point you know the judge is counting everything, not just legal, effective punches.

The computer techs can see each judge's total running scores (raw score) If someone who is too high we let the ring captain or the Chief of Officials know. The only way we could calm down the IOC was to have the totals be based on the "accepted" score - three out of the five judges pushing the button for the same boxer within a one second window. There would be no need for computer scoring if the decisions were based on the "raw" score - we could just use the clickers. Golden Gloves may give their decisions as 5-0, 4-1, 3-2, however I'd love to see the totals they accumulate on the clickers in each round.

Heard a rumor that GG is going back to the 20-point must system. Quick way to not have their shows/tournaments sanctioned. I just don't understand why they won't follow USAB rules. Isn't fair to the boxers.

emile · Post by **emile** » 29 May 2007, 16:45

With computer scoring, you should easily be able to write a program that compares and rates the judges, showing which ones were most out of step with their colleagues. Even better, you could have assessors watch fights on tape, in slow motion and mark scoring blows, and then compare that data with what was entered by the judges and see who was way off and who was close. It should be quite easy to find out who is counting non-scoring punches and who is missing scoring blows. That that is not already being done is a little depressing.

With the clickers, there is no way to know what has been scored when, as you say. I wouldn't want to go back to that type of scoring because the possibility of out-and-out corruption is too high.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 29 May 2007, 17:23

With computer scoring, you should easily be able to write a program that compares and rates the judges, showing which ones were most out of step with their colleagues.

This is already being done. We run an "End of Bout" report at the end of each bout that "rates" the judges.

Even better, you could have assessors watch fights on tape, in slow motion and mark scoring blows, and then compare that data with what was entered by the judges and see who was way off and who was close.

You would have to have 5 camcorders taping at the same positions the judges are seated. One tape only gives one point of view. You would need to assess all points of view. This would not be cost-effective as you would need 5 camcorders and 5 additional "assessors." And if they were to determine that they didn't see the same thing as the judges, overturning the initial decision would open up a can of worms.

It should be quite easy to find out who is counting non-scoring punches and who is missing scoring blows. That that is not already being done is a little depressing.

I know that the "spy" cameras are going to be used at the Olympics. And they have a jury who does nothing but watch the judges on monitors. This probably works for the major international tournaments, however, to do this at our national tournaments would be very expensive.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 29 May 2007, 17:45

boxmel wrote:In my opinion, the clicker system does not make the judges accountable because you can't see what they are doing. I've seen very high scores with clickers, to the point you know the judge is counting everything, not just legal, effective punches.

The computer techs can see each judge's total running scores (raw score) If someone who is too high we let the ring captain or the Chief of Officials know. The only way we could calm down the IOC was to have the totals be based on the "accepted" score - three out of the five judges pushing the button for the same boxer within a one second window. There would be no need for computer scoring if the decisions were based on the "raw" score - we could just use the clickers. Golden Gloves may give their decisions as 5-0, 4-1, 3-2, however I'd love to see the totals they accumulate on the clickers in each round.

Heard a rumor that GG is going back to the 20-point must system. Quick way to not have their shows/tournaments sanctioned. I just don't understand why they won't follow USAB rules. Isn't fair to the boxers.

Mel - I looked at some scores at the National Golden Gloves - this year and last year. They don't look any different than the raw scores at National JO's, MW Trials, etc. There are always some judges who score more punches and other judges who are very stingy with clicking or pressing the computer button. Some boxers clearly prefer the clicker scoring or even the old 20 point system. Danny Jacobs has said that he prefers the way the Golden Gloves scores bouts over the computer scoring. So clearly not all boxers are in love with computer scoring.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 29 May 2007, 19:32

Dennis - not everyone is happy with the computer scoring, boxers or coaches. I frankly don't see why everyone thinks the clicker "raw score" numbers are better than the computer "accepted score" numbers. What matters is the win, not the number of points. Is it because everyone wants to see high scores? Shucks, we had plenty of those at the Westerns in the "accepted score." The scoring criteria is the same whether the punches are tallyed by the clickers or by the computer.

Boxers need to stay out of the corners and off the ropes and keep in the middle of the ring for a majority of three judges to see their blows and score them. This is true for clicker scoring as well as computer scoring.

If the athletes quit worrying about their scores and just box to win, they'd probably be much happier.

Roberts J · Post by **Roberts J** » 31 May 2007, 03:52

for me as a boxer, i'm not sure if it farfetched, but the idea of havgin 3 x 3 min rounds would be nice, but i doubt they will let boxers , box without helmets,

Roberts J · Post by **Roberts J** » 31 May 2007, 03:55

boxmel wrote:The boxers complain about the headgear now. Can you imagine what they would say about one with bars across the face!!!!!!

I agree, the Green Hill Headgear is terrible, Im still recovetring from a cut i got, and a friend of my got his eardrum popped using is,

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 31 May 2007, 09:12

I doubt that AIBA will go back to 3-3 minute rounds. I can't remember why they went to 4-2's (same amount of total time - 11 minutes) - think it had something to do with TV. We don't use Greenhill in the U.S. unless we host a major international event. Guess we'll have to use it at the Worlds this year, unless AIBA decides otherwise. I remember when Top Ten caused many, many cuts (1992 Olympics).

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 31 May 2007, 14:28

Roberts J wrote:
boxmel wrote:The boxers complain about the headgear now. Can you imagine what they would say about one with bars across the face!!!!!!
I agree, the Green Hill Headgear is terrible, Im still recovetring from a cut i got, and a friend of my got his eardrum popped using is,

Roberts - sorry to hear that you got cut. Are you still in Europe or are you back in the windy city? Jordan and I are in Colorado Springs for the US Championships.

Roberts J · Post by **Roberts J** » 01 Jun 2007, 03:35

Ill be back next wensday, right when the championship starts, getting in some club fights, cut should be healed then, let me know how u guys do, set up some sparrin after the champ and etc. good luck

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 08 Jun 2007, 13:02

I think the paper scoring should have stayed and when a very bad decision was given and all agreed it was bad, the officials involved should be banned from boxing. It's that simple. Get tough and you will keep the decisions fair. To be honest there was very few real bad decisions with the paper scoring. The computer scoring is OK to a certain extent but at times it's disgraceful when a boxer gives everything for 8 mins and ends up with 5-6 points when it's obvious and clear to all that he has landed a lot more. It's very disheartning and unfair

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 08 Jun 2007, 13:18

I think the paper scoring should have stayed and when a very bad decision was given and all agreed it was bad, the officials involved should be banned from boxing. It's that simple.

And who would you have deciding whether or not a decision is "bad?" If you're going to do that, you may as well do away with the judges and just have one person decide who wins. There is/was no accountability with paper scoring.

To be honest there was very few real bad decisions with the paper scoring.

I beg to differ - but, if you have years of stats to back up your statement, feel free to post.

The computer scoring is OK to a certain extent but at times it's disgraceful when a boxer gives everything for 8 mins and ends up with 5-6 points when it's obvious and clear to all that he has landed a lot more. It's very disheartning and unfair

I don't quite understand your reasoning. If a boxer's goal is to win the bout, why should the number of points matter? Back when the 20-point must system was used, no one ever knew what the scores were and it didn't matter. Same goes with the clickers now - the actual scores aren't given.

To make a comment on one that was already posted - showing the judges running score (are you talking raw or accepted?) wouldn't really solve any problems and would take a whole new program to do that. Judges are never identified in amateur boxing.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 08 Jun 2007, 14:05

A committee or separate number of officials can decide that a particular decision was really bad and take action aginst the judges who ruled in favor of the 'victor'. I'm assuming this all takes place after the losers camp make an official complaint. I'm talking about really bad and obvious decisions. I can't see why they ever did away with it and yes I do believe that it is disgusting to see decisions in the computer scores so off the mark.
Maybe you don't care, but try explain to a boxer who has trained so hard and fought so well that he only landed 4-5 punches when he knows in his heart he landed maybe 25-30. Win lose or draw it hurts to see this. Any boxer will tell you this.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 08 Jun 2007, 14:07

By the way why should I have to back up my claim that there have been few bad decisions. You are the one who seems to think I am wrong, so prove me wrong with years of stats and 'bad decisions'