New Scoring System being tested by AIBA

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 08 Jun 2007, 14:37

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. I don't keep track of "bad decisions," like I am sure you don't. I would guess that if you took a poll of people who watch amateur boxing, they will tell you there are probably as many "bad decisions" with computer scoring as there were with the manual scoring. Also, "bad decisions" are also in the subjective eye of the spectator beholder.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 08 Jun 2007, 15:16

Ok, we shall agree to disagree. But surely you agree when I say that there have been far too many instances where clear punches have landed and no score has registered and sometimes I have actually seen the receiver of the punch being credited with the score. That's how dodgy the computer system has been

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 08 Jun 2007, 16:20

Please remember that you are watching the punch from one point of view and that three out of the five judges have to see the same punch within a one-second window. Also remember that the computer system is at the mercy of those punching buttons. You can't blame the "computer" for being dodgy.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 09 Jun 2007, 23:07

That is why I don't think we should keep the "3 judges must hit the button within a second of each other" part of computer scoring. If only 2 judges can see the punch land, let them count it. There are punches that only the other judges will see. More in-fighting can be counted this way. Also I think that more combinations will be counted. I agree with the other poster Mel that it is very frustrating for boxers and coaches to see a boxer go out and land some nice punches, even some that knock down the opponent and only get credit for 2 or 3 punches in the round. A shutout round happens sometimes and yet you have seen punches land. My son has won rounds where his opponent didn't get credit for any punches and yet I know that he was hit at least once or twice. It is the process that we have, so we all live with it and do the best we can to use it to our advantage.

squarering · Post by **squarering** » 10 Jun 2007, 19:18

Bottom line, fair honest and unbias judges with plenty of experience and you won't have bad decisions. This new gadget will trun boxing into what fencing jhas become, and isn't that loads of fun to watch.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 10 Jun 2007, 22:03

I mostly agree with what everyone says - except the "3 judges in the one-second window" is one of the ways to prevent flagrant cheating. However, as much as we can all speculate and offer suggestions, the bottom line is that AIBA dictates how the computerized scoring system works.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 11 Jun 2007, 00:53

squarering wrote:Bottom line, fair honest and unbias judges with plenty of experience and you won't have bad decisions. This new gadget will trun boxing into what fencing jhas become, and isn't that loads of fun to watch.

And right now we have video game judging Hal. Except the video game players are a little older than normal PS-3, Wii and XBOX 360 players and their reaction times are not as quick.

I don't think the computer scoring or any derivative thereof is the answer, but Mel is right that AIBA dictates the rules to USAB because of the Olympics and other international competitions.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 12 Jun 2007, 03:52

boxmel wrote:Please remember that you are watching the punch from one point of view and that three out of the five judges have to see the same punch within a one-second window. Also remember that the computer system is at the mercy of those punching buttons. You can't blame the "computer" for being dodgy.

Look the computer is just that, a computer. It does not score the fight. Judges use it to score. We cannot blame a computer, but only those using IT!!!

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 12 Jun 2007, 03:56

One major wrong with the computer system is that it does not score for
aggression or combinations. It's very rare you see body punches score or flurries score. It favors the counter puncher/boxer too much. It's like points scoring, with no regard for pressure, aggression or ring generalship which are all vital and fundamental parts of boxing

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 12 Jun 2007, 08:58

One major wrong with the computer system is that it does not score for aggression or combinations. It's very rare you see body punches score or flurries score. It favors the counter puncher/boxer too much. It's like points scoring, with no regard for pressure, aggression or ring generalship which are all vital and fundamental parts of boxing

The computer doesn't "score" at all. The judges do by pushing the buttons.

And you're right, it IS points scoring. Pressure, aggression or ring generalship are not factors in the amateur boxing scoring criteria. In amateur boxing, a legal scoring blow is one landed with the white knuckle surface of the glove in the scoring area with the weight of the shoulder behind it while not being blocked or guarded or infringing on the rules.

Yes, body shots do get counted and flurries, or "shoeshines" have a hard time being recorded because a judge normally can't see them.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 12 Jun 2007, 10:35

Even when a boxer lands a flurry or combination from the outside, the judges have a difficult time pressing the button as fast as the punches land. A good elite boxer can throw and land 5 or more punches in one second and many judges do not seem to be able to keep up.

I know that I'm preaching to the choir with you on this one Mel, but I agree with the other poster that combinations that land should be scored properly.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 12 Jun 2007, 11:29

I know that I'm preaching to the choir with you on this one Mel, but I agree with the other poster that combinations that land should be scored properly.

I don't disagree at all. If a boxer can land combinations that a judge can clearly see, they will get counted - probably not 5 punches in a row - but a good number of them. That's why it's so important to stay in the middle of the ring and move so at least three out of the five judges get a good view.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 12 Jun 2007, 15:36

Unfortunately, it just doesn't happen. The boxers throw the 5 punch combinations and even if all 5 land clearly they are LUCKY if they get credit for 2 or 3 scoring blows.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 12 Jun 2007, 15:41

I watched several of the US Championships finals bouts on TV last night. The commentators and I agree that there were a few rounds where the judges were watching a different bout. Boxer A would clearly land 10-12 punches and Boxer B would land 3 or 4 and the score would appear and show that Boxer B won the round 10-4. It was like the judges mixed up the boxers or something.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 12 Jun 2007, 16:00

I'm sure spectators and TV commentators with one point of view will always see something different than the judges and comment on their ineptness. That's just the way it is.

And, by the way, the scores you see on TV are not "round" scores. You are seeing a running accepted score, i.e, cumulative.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 12 Jun 2007, 21:55

boxmel wrote:I'm sure spectators and TV commentators with one point of view will always see something different than the judges and comment on their ineptness. That's just the way it is. And, by the way, the scores you see on TV are not "round" scores. You are seeing a running accepted score, i.e, cumulative.

No, actually Mel they showed the score for each round. They were getting the same info that was being sent to the corners in between rounds.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 12 Jun 2007, 22:50

Interesting - first time I've known TV to get round scores. That should thoroughly confuse everyone. Wonder if people will ever learn to just accept the scores as they are instead of wanting something they aren't. Probably not.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 13 Jun 2007, 04:48

boxmel wrote:
One major wrong with the computer system is that it does not score for aggression or combinations. It's very rare you see body punches score or flurries score. It favors the counter puncher/boxer too much. It's like points scoring, with no regard for pressure, aggression or ring generalship which are all vital and fundamental parts of boxing

The computer doesn't "score" at all. The judges do by pushing the buttons.

Didn't I say this in my previous post. Judges score using a computer.
And a lot of these judges are probably too old and not quick enough mentally to score properly. They do NOT score flurries properly and the fact that aggression and ring generalship is NOT scored is plain wrong.
It has changed the whole sport of boxing, as pressure, aggression and controlling the ring always meant for something in scoring fights

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 13 Jun 2007, 09:11

And a lot of these judges are probably too old and not quick enough mentally to score properly.

And just how old is too old? My husband, who is 64, when tested by the USOC, had one of the highest reaction times. I'm 67 and am quite quick mentally. Careful with your judgemental statements based only on your speculation, my dear.

They do NOT score flurries properly and the fact that aggression and ring generalship is NOT scored is plain wrong.

You can complain to AIBA and see if they will change the scoring criteria.

It has changed the whole sport of boxing,

Pro or amateur?

as pressure, aggression and controlling the ring always meant for something in scoring fights

Watch my lips. The above has NEVER been part of the scoring criteria for amateur boxing.

I think we can both agree that you do not like computer scoring and you do not agree with the amateur boxing scoring criteria. However, it's here to stay and it isn't going to change.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » 13 Jun 2007, 11:41

It is obvious that even AIBA acknowledges that there are problems with the current system or they wouldn't be testing a NEW system. They realize that some scoring blows are not being counted and that some blows that APPEAR to land are being counted.

Don't assume that what we currently have is destined to be here forever. All it takes is a Roy Jones type robbery in the Olympics again and we could have an all-new scoring system. If enough people complain and start discourse on the topic, AIBA might make some changes. That is the reason I started this thread and guess what it has struck a cord. Many coaches and boxers are complaining about the current system and very few are defending it.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 13 Jun 2007, 11:47

The "new" AIBA scoring system is the current German system which has been in use for quite a while. I won't know what the "changes," if any, are until we get ours. I doubt seriously that they made any changes to the current criteria, except that the first tiebreaker is now taken from the accepted score instead of the raw score. And they have probably added "scoreboard" capability, which the U.S. outdated system already has.

You can give all the information in the world about the computerized scoring systems and the majority of coaches, boxers and spectators will not like it. But I seriously doubt that the IOC would ever let us go back to manual scoring. That's why I say computerized scoring is here to stay.

emile · Post by **emile** » 13 Jun 2007, 12:18

I agree with Mel that we shouldn't go back to a subjective scoring method - as much as people might complain about the scoring now, I haven't seen anything nearly as bad as the Roy Jones Jr robbery or some of the other fishy decisions made in the Olympics in the 80's. There simply has to be more accountability.

My mind has not been changed that the better way to do it is to simply make a five-judge score (ie. 3-2, 4-1) based on each one's computerized clicker. The current system does have a nice advantage of combining actions, so that if someone wanted to cheat they would have to get three judges to all be clicking away at the same time. I like that - its almost impossible to have that level of coordinated corruption.

But, at the same time, it is so enormously counterintuitive to show a bout on TV and have a clear blow land and nothing happen. Or have a five-punch flurry and one point getting added, and then cancelled out by a n easy-to-see weak jab. People are never going to accept this as fair, IMO.

Totalling each judges' clicker seperately allows more room for corruption again, since each judge would have an individual 20% effect on the decision. But, again, it would be much, much more difficult to justify the crime if TV viewers could see when you were clicking points at all times. Just as they show all the judges scores on ice skating, announce and show in real time, all the judges clicker totals.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 13 Jun 2007, 12:51

Emile, we don't use "clickers." Each judge has a keypad in front of them and they push the left button for the red corner and the right button for the blue corner whenever they see a legal effective punch. If you were to go back to a "5-0, 3-2, 4-1" decision, the computer techs would have to figure this out manually and we would no longer show the running score on TV or show the corners the round scores.

But, again, it would be much, much more difficult to justify the crime if TV viewers could see when you were clicking points at all times. Just as they show all the judges scores on ice skating, announce and show in real time, all the judges clicker totals.

None of the current computerized scoring systems (German, Russian, Brazilian, etc.) are set up to do this. Plus amateur boxing will NEVER show the judges names and their individual scores. Plus, and I know this will start a storm of protest, TV viewers on their couches or on bar stools or wherever (1) do not see 5 points of view and (2), most importantly, are not trained judges and do not know how to score amateur boxing.

The bottom line is that there will always be someone, or someones, who will not like the scoring, no matter the system. I doubt seriously that AIBA could come up with a scoring system that would satisfy all parties. And, as I've stated repeatedly, AIBA answers to the IOC and does what they are told so amateur boxing stays in the Olympics.

emile · Post by **emile** » 13 Jun 2007, 13:02

boxmel wrote:Emile, we don't use "clickers." Each judge has a keypad in front of them and they push the left button for the red corner and the right button for the blue corner whenever they see a legal effective punch.

Yes I understand how it works, and I just meant 'clicker' in the sense of a person clicking a button or pad when they record a scoring punch.

boxmel wrote:If you were to go back to a "5-0, 3-2, 4-1" decision, the computer techs would have to figure this out manually and we would no longer show the running score on TV or show the corners the round scores.

I don't see at all why this would be true. You would simply have the computer keep the running scores and show a simultaneous running score of the overall judge totals (the 3-2 score). I agree that they should not show the judges names, but show the flag of origin and the running total. Or at least their totals at the end of each round. The IOC does this for skating, diving, gymnastics (i think), ski jumping, basically every other sport that requires subjective judging. Why would they not be willing to do it with boxing? I doubt hardly anyone knows all the scoring elements that are used for judging ice skating, but they still get to see each of the individual judges' scores. I guess that hasn't really protected ice skating from judging controversy :), but still.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 13 Jun 2007, 13:27

I don't see at all why this would be true. You would simply have the computer keep the running scores and show a simultaneous running score of the overall judge totals (the 3-2 score).

This would require an entire new scoring system and I don't know if AIBA would (1) approve this method and/or (2) put out the funds to create the program. My gut feeling is they wouldn't.

The IOC does this for skating, diving, gymnastics (i think), ski jumping, basically every other sport that requires subjective judging.

The IOC doesn't have anything to do with the actual scoring systems and what information they provide and how it is provided. They are determined by the sport's IF (in our case, AIBA).

I guess that hasn't really protected ice skating from judging controversy , but still....

And you just answered your own question.

As long as you have what is considered subjective scoring, there will always be controversy.

New Scoring System being tested by AIBA

scoring

Re: scoring