I have watched judges whilst they judged fights, pre computers when rds were 3 minutes. Now at times during some fights you could have 5-6 scores in 2-3 secs between the two fighters. Are you telling me a judge is expected to count each score for each fighter and remember exactly this at the end of each rd, without using buttons or even pens. Because I never saw judges doing anything but simply sitting back and watching.
There were fights were the two guys could throw maybe 25 shots in 6-7 seconds with maybe 12-15 landing in total. This went on for 9 minutes. It's not possible IMO, to expect humans to be able to count up effectively for each fighter, remember and then award victory. No at the pace amateurs are operating.
New Scoring System being tested by AIBA
How many times do I have to quote from the rule book before you will understand that the scoring criteria has nothing to do with "my rationale?"am simply questioning your rationale
Then you will have to continue to find it odd and strange because that was how it was done. I'm beginning to think you are rather odd and strange.and I find it odd and strange that this was how all amateur fights were judged BEFORE computers were brought in
You win. You win. You win.
I can tell you that the scoring system was not always "counting scoring blows". It has been that way for maybe 25 years. Even during most of that period of time in the U.S. (pre clickers), many judges would watch the action you described and think "blue is up by a point" or "red dominated that round and should win by 2 points". You are correct that the judges almost always failed to keep a running tally in their heads of the total number of punches landed by each boxer. Most judges would rarely score a round 20-15 even though one boxer would land 15 more scoring blows than the other boxer. I had numerous judges tell me that they would just keep track of who was winning and by how much - a point or two.walshb wrote:I have watched judges whilst they judged fights, pre computers when rds were 3 minutes. Now at times during some fights you could have 5-6 scores in 2-3 secs between the two fighters. Are you telling me a judge is expected to count each score for each fighter and remember exactly this at the end of each rd, without using buttons or even pens. Because I never saw judges doing anything but simply sitting back and watching.
There were fights were the two guys could throw maybe 25 shots in 6-7 seconds with maybe 12-15 landing in total. This went on for 9 minutes. It's not possible IMO, to expect humans to be able to count up effectively for each fighter, remember and then award victory. No at the pace amateurs are operating.
I can tell you that even with 2 minute rounds, I have seen bouts where the total number of punches thrown by both boxers combined (not landed) was well over 200. And yes, over 300 when the rounds were 3 minutes each. My youngest son's first bout when he was 8 is a prime example. The rounds were 60 seconds in duration and he threw well over 100 punches per round for all 3 rounds (counted by watching the videotape - it would have been almost impossible to do so while watching it LIVE). His opponent wasn't too far behind that number. They were both little windmills out there. I am not saying the technique was perfect, but they were busy.
Remember that amateur boxing has been around for more than 100 years. I have talked to coaches who were boxers and had fathers/grandfathers who were amateur boxers back in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's and the consensus is clear - counting punches was NOT the scoring method used during those periods of time. It appears it changed in the 80's. When exactly? I do not know.
If anyone has old rulebooks from the late 70's through the mid/late 80's they could tell us exactly when. I guess it is a moot point as we now "count scoring blows" and that is the system we have to use and for which we prepare our boxers.
However, yes "walshb" we used to have a system very similar to pro scoring and it really wasn't that long ago considering that amateur boxing has been around in the United States since the 1880's.
Finally someone talking sense. I never douted Boxmel's record or rule book. All I found strange from my time involved as a boxer in the amateur game is that the judges based their decision purely and simply on scoring blows, that they counted up in their heads. That's what I found odd. And this was when the rds were 3 mins, PRE computers. How can anyone expect fair and accurate results going by this, when as you and I pointed out, that punches are being thrown non stop from all angles to body and head, clinches, short, long, uppercuts etc etc. I believe that blows were definitely taken into account, but I also believe that when a judge watched a rd he/she considered quite close, he/she took into account aggression, pressure, and all roung ring generalship. He/she had toDennis wrote:I can tell you that the scoring system was not always "counting scoring blows". It has been that way for maybe 25 years. Even during most of that period of time in the U.S. (pre clickers), many judges would watch the action you described and think "blue is up by a point" or "red dominated that round and should win by 2 points". You are correct that the judges almost always failed to keep a running tally in their heads of the total number of punches landed by each boxer. Most judges would rarely score a round 20-15 even though one boxer would land 15 more scoring blows than the other boxer. I had numerous judges tell me that they would just keep track of who was winning and by how much - a point or two.walshb wrote:I have watched judges whilst they judged fights, pre computers when rds were 3 minutes. Now at times during some fights you could have 5-6 scores in 2-3 secs between the two fighters. Are you telling me a judge is expected to count each score for each fighter and remember exactly this at the end of each rd, without using buttons or even pens. Because I never saw judges doing anything but simply sitting back and watching.
There were fights were the two guys could throw maybe 25 shots in 6-7 seconds with maybe 12-15 landing in total. This went on for 9 minutes. It's not possible IMO, to expect humans to be able to count up effectively for each fighter, remember and then award victory. No at the pace amateurs are operating.
I can tell you that even with 2 minute rounds, I have seen bouts where the total number of punches thrown by both boxers combined (not landed) was well over 200. And yes, over 300 when the rounds were 3 minutes each. My youngest son's first bout when he was 8 is a prime example. The rounds were 60 seconds in duration and he threw well over 100 punches per round for all 3 rounds (counted by watching the videotape - it would have been almost impossible to do so while watching it LIVE). His opponent wasn't too far behind that number. They were both little windmills out there. I am not saying the technique was perfect, but they were busy.
Remember that amateur boxing has been around for more than 100 years. I have talked to coaches who were boxers and had fathers/grandfathers who were amateur boxers back in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's and the consensus is clear - counting punches was NOT the scoring method used during those periods of time. It appears it changed in the 80's. When exactly? I do not know.
If anyone has old rulebooks from the late 70's through the mid/late 80's they could tell us exactly when. I guess it is a moot point as we now "count scoring blows" and that is the system we have to use and for which we prepare our boxers.
However, yes "walshb" we used to have a system very similar to pro scoring and it really wasn't that long ago considering that amateur boxing has been around in the United States since the 1880's.
Is this posted on the forum yet?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19261960/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19261960/
I've basically gotten what I wanted, so let's see if it wactually works. I'm not sure what discarding the highest and lowest scores means in this context. Anyone got a handle on that?The old system - based on three of the five judges pressing a button within the same second to validate a blow - will be replaced by one where each judge counts blows separately, and the highest and lowest of the five judges' scores will be discarded.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
"This caused a lot of debate'' within the reform committee, said Heiberg. "But it works really well in ski jumping, why shouldn't it work as well in boxing?''
The previous system was unsuitable because it was open to manipulation and misunderstanding, said Heiberg, who is also an IOC executive board member.
AIBA also plans to introduce an open scoring system "so that everybody can see for themselves what the referees and judges are doing,'' he said, adding: "We want openness and transparency as much as possible here.''
Did not.but I also believe that when a judge watched a rd he/she considered quite close, he/she took into account aggression, pressure, and all roung ring generalship. He/she had to
Emile - yes, I posted the "new" scoring info on Friday, I think. I'm not real sure what it means - possibly 10 judges and 10 systems (one for each corner) - will be logistically challenging (10 judges ringside) and, in many cases, costly - if this is how it's going to be. We manually toss out the high and the low scores now in order to break a tie. Hopefully, the new system will do this automatically, and probably on the accepted score. All you do is delete the high and the low score on each of the 5 judges and add up the rest. Whoever has the most points, wins. However, I wonder how a tie will now be determined. The US isn't getting its "evaluation" system for a while and I have no idea how, or by who, it will be evaluated. Even though our current systems are slowly dying, I wouldn't want to "evaluate" a new system at the Box-offs. Stay tuned.
Hmm, I still can't find any discussion on it - sorry I missed it.
The article says five judges. I'm still a little unclear about how the trackback works - the high and low score for each fighter are discarded, and you add the three remaining scores together for each of them? If that's right I guess I like that, although I'm not crazy about accumulating the totals, because judges who score more blows will possibly be more influential. I'd prefer to see each judge's score as a seperate entity (and still maybe removing the most out of step with the others). But I'm definitely willing to see how it goes.
However, unveiling a new system at the Olympics seems insane to me. It will likely cause some changes in tactics, and it hardly seems like that's the time and place to see what happens. Could make for a very chaotic Oly tournament - both logistically and in the results.
The article says five judges. I'm still a little unclear about how the trackback works - the high and low score for each fighter are discarded, and you add the three remaining scores together for each of them? If that's right I guess I like that, although I'm not crazy about accumulating the totals, because judges who score more blows will possibly be more influential. I'd prefer to see each judge's score as a seperate entity (and still maybe removing the most out of step with the others). But I'm definitely willing to see how it goes.
However, unveiling a new system at the Olympics seems insane to me. It will likely cause some changes in tactics, and it hardly seems like that's the time and place to see what happens. Could make for a very chaotic Oly tournament - both logistically and in the results.
No discussion. I put it at the end of one of my useless posts to walshb regarding judging.Hmm, I still can't find any discussion on it - sorry I missed it.
Yes.The article says five judges. I'm still a little unclear about how the trackback works - the high and low score for each fighter are discarded, and you add the three remaining scores together for each of them?
However it isn't really stated how it's going to work. It sounds like there will be no more "accepted" score, since the "3-judges-in-a-one-second-window" will no longer be the determining factor. If they take the raw score, I'm a bit perturbed because I've seen judges score rounds really high, i.e., counting absolutely everything and not just the legal effective punches. However, I guess if all 10 judges come up with the same winner, the total amount of punches doesn't really matter.
Yep.although I'm not crazy about accumulating the totals, because judges who score more blows will possibly be more influential.
The new system is being evaluated as I type. Hopefully all the bugs will be worked out by the time the Olympic boxing starts.However, unveiling a new system at the Olympics seems insane to me.
It shouldn't cause any changes at all.It will likely cause some changes in tactics,
Think this was probably forced due to the IOC's unhappiness with our scoring.and it hardly seems like that's the time and place to see what happens.
In regards to tactical changes Mel, you might be right - but a wholesale alteration of how fights are scored is IMO very likely to be better or worse for various boxers. I'm not certain how it might affect the bouts yet, but I think there will be effects.
Also, does this mean that 'outclassed' is going away? I would like that - the ref can always stop the fight if someone is getting cuffed around badly, but why should a guy get stopped because he's getting potshotted. If he's not getting hurt, let him finish the fight.
Also, does this mean that 'outclassed' is going away? I would like that - the ref can always stop the fight if someone is getting cuffed around badly, but why should a guy get stopped because he's getting potshotted. If he's not getting hurt, let him finish the fight.
Emile, the scoring criteria will remain the same - that won't change. The only thing I can see changing is possibly the numbers of judges used (10 instead of 5) and the computer calculating the score in a different manner.
Don't know about the "OS" Outscored. Since AIBA put in that rule, I don't know if they'll take it out or not - I'm willing to bet they won't but we'll just have to wait and see.
Don't know about the "OS" Outscored. Since AIBA put in that rule, I don't know if they'll take it out or not - I'm willing to bet they won't but we'll just have to wait and see.
I understand that the scoring criteria isn't changing, but in any system you're going to 'game' the system to your advantage. For example, in the current system, you need to make sure you land a punch that three of the five judges can see. So it's in your interest to keep distance and fight in the center of the ring, as you always tell peopple/
Given our speculation of how this might work, it's likely that a punch that only one judge sees will still have value, and a single clear punch could actually lose value, because the overall scores will be higher, and two of the judges recording of that punch may not count. So flurries might become more valuable - fighters who throw more punches might get more results, etc. I can't yet say how I think things might change, but I think this is bad news for programs that have totally optimized their fighters styles to fight under the current system. It won't make a bad fighter beat a good fighter - but between two closely matched guys, it could mean something significant.
Given our speculation of how this might work, it's likely that a punch that only one judge sees will still have value, and a single clear punch could actually lose value, because the overall scores will be higher, and two of the judges recording of that punch may not count. So flurries might become more valuable - fighters who throw more punches might get more results, etc. I can't yet say how I think things might change, but I think this is bad news for programs that have totally optimized their fighters styles to fight under the current system. It won't make a bad fighter beat a good fighter - but between two closely matched guys, it could mean something significant.
I definitely understand your concern, Emile. An example is a boxer on the ropes where only one judge, maybe two, can see him, and are pushing high scores that, of course, would override anything the judges who can't see him might do. Hopefully, our boxers won't go back to boxing off the ropes or in the corners because it will still be better if they move in the middle of the ring so the majority of judges can see them. It's really going to be interesting to see how this plays out - especially since none of us have concrete information on how it will work. It's all just speculation at this point.
From what I understand Mel, it will be like the current system, just with modifications. There will still be 5 judges, and each will still have an electronic scorer where they press the button when they see a point. Only now, the system won't require 3 judges to score for the same person within a 1 second window; it will be more like the clickers that they use for paper scoring and what not, where each judge has a seperate score for the fight and at the end of the fight; the card with the highest score and lowest score will be thrown out. I think this sounds like a great reform and should help prevent a lot of possible cheating or bias going on.boxmel wrote:Did not.but I also believe that when a judge watched a rd he/she considered quite close, he/she took into account aggression, pressure, and all roung ring generalship. He/she had to
Emile - yes, I posted the "new" scoring info on Friday, I think. I'm not real sure what it means - possibly 10 judges and 10 systems (one for each corner) - will be logistically challenging (10 judges ringside) and, in many cases, costly - if this is how it's going to be. We manually toss out the high and the low scores now in order to break a tie. Hopefully, the new system will do this automatically, and probably on the accepted score. All you do is delete the high and the low score on each of the 5 judges and add up the rest. Whoever has the most points, wins. However, I wonder how a tie will now be determined. The US isn't getting its "evaluation" system for a while and I have no idea how, or by who, it will be evaluated. Even though our current systems are slowly dying, I wouldn't want to "evaluate" a new system at the Box-offs. Stay tuned.
Okay - let me see if I get this. Judge 1 has 45-30 total score for red corner; Judge 2 has 20-17 total score for red corner; Judge 3 has 25-30 for blue corner; Judge 4 has 10-8 for red corner and Judge 5 has 40-50 for blue corner. Do you toss Judge 1 and 4's total cards because they are the highest and lowest? And score the winner on Judge 2, 3 and 5? Red would get 85 points (total of 3 judges) and blue would get 97 points (total of 3 judges) and blue would win? Or do you toss the highest and lowest points on both corners and total the remaining numbers for both corners?From what I understand Mel, it will be like the current system, just with modifications. it will be more like the clickers that they use for paper scoring and what not, where each judge has a seperate score for the fight and at the end of the fight; the card with the highest score and lowest score will be thrown out. I think this sounds like a great reform and should help prevent a lot of possible cheating or bias going on.
I really don't see how this is going to prevent cheating and/or bias. It might, eventually, deter judges from consistently pushing the button for one boxer - but that hasn't happened under the current system.
[/quote]
[/quote]boxmel wrote:Okay - let me see if I get this. Judge 1 has 45-30 total score for red corner; Judge 2 has 20-17 total score for red corner; Judge 3 has 25-30 for blue corner; Judge 4 has 10-8 for red corner and Judge 5 has 40-50 for blue corner. Do you toss Judge 1 and 4's total cards because they are the highest and lowest? And score the winner on Judge 2, 3 and 5? Red would get 85 points (total of 3 judges) and blue would get 97 points (total of 3 judges) and blue would win? Or do you toss the highest and lowest points on both corners and total the remaining numbers for both corners?From what I understand Mel, it will be like the current system, just with modifications. it will be more like the clickers that they use for paper scoring and what not, where each judge has a seperate score for the fight and at the end of the fight; the card with the highest score and lowest score will be thrown out. I think this sounds like a great reform and should help prevent a lot of possible cheating or bias going on.
I really don't see how this is going to prevent cheating and/or bias. It might, eventually, deter judges from consistently pushing the button for one boxer - but that hasn't happened under the current system.
The way I figured it could deter bias is by showing what jduges could be out in left field or giving scores that are way out of synch with every other judges. As it is now though, with the current system all a judge has to do is not press the button when he sees a punch, and if only two judges cclick it and the third who could have seen it doesn't, a boxer loses out on a point. Guess we'll just have to see how they implement it, I heard it's first full run would be at the World Championships this year.
My impression (from what you told me actually), is that the highest and lowest scores for each fighter are dropped and the other three scores are totalled (so theoretically one judge could end up scoring one fighter and not the other). In your example red wins 85-77.
The only other way I could see it working is if you threw out the two judges with the highest and lowest combined scores, which would be judges 4 and 5 in your example. Which would result in a 90-77 win for red.
The first way should prevent bias to some degree by an individual judge, since they will not be counted if they are too generous or too stingy for one fighter. It seems more likely that certain judges will just be less likely to have their scores counted at all, those with generally twitchy or miserly fingers.
The only other way I could see it working is if you threw out the two judges with the highest and lowest combined scores, which would be judges 4 and 5 in your example. Which would result in a 90-77 win for red.
The first way should prevent bias to some degree by an individual judge, since they will not be counted if they are too generous or too stingy for one fighter. It seems more likely that certain judges will just be less likely to have their scores counted at all, those with generally twitchy or miserly fingers.
We have always been able to see what judges were pushing the button too much or too little. The present system has several excellent reports that are run to check for cheating, etc.The way I figured it could deter bias is by showing what jduges could be out in left field or giving scores that are way out of synch with every other judges.
I don't know how using "raw scores" is going to change that. A judge can still make the choice to not press the button if he sees a punch and there isn't any way we can tell if he's cheating or not.As it is now though, with the current system all a judge has to do is not press the button when he sees a punch,
Yep and yep. I just hope any bugs have been fixed before October. My understanding is that various countries are "evaluating" the system and, according to info I received, the evaluation period ends at the end of this year and then AIBA will make a decision on whether or not to market the system. The US, for instance, will need at least 3 systems; 4 if we want a spare.Guess we'll just have to see how they implement it, I heard it's first full run would be at the World Championships this year.
From the Associated Press:
The International Amateur Boxing Association is considering whether to make bouts longer and eliminate headgear.
The proposals are being studied by AIBA's medical commission after a reform committee suggested the changes at a recent meeting, according to spokesman Richard Baker.
If approved by the medical committee, AIBA would try having boxing matches last for three rounds of three minutes each, rather than the current four rounds of two minutes each.
This change, along with the removal of protective headgear worn by amateurs, could apply to selected competitions from August onward, but not at the 2008 Olympics or the 2007 worlds, Baker said.
He also confirmed that plans to scrap AIBA's electronic scoring system in favor of a more transparent one would not be implemented until after the Beijing Olympics.
Under the old system, three of the five judges have to press a button within the same second to validate a blow. It will be replaced by one in which each judge counts blows separately, and the highest and lowest of the five judges' scores will be discarded.
"There are still some minor adjustments required," Baker said. "Therefore the reform recommendations, particularly those of the scoring system, will not be introduced until after the Beijing Olympic Games."
Wow. They really want to get back to the good old days.emile wrote:From the Associated Press:
The International Amateur Boxing Association is considering whether to make bouts longer and eliminate headgear.
The proposals are being studied by AIBA's medical commission after a reform committee suggested the changes at a recent meeting, according to spokesman Richard Baker.
If approved by the medical committee, AIBA would try having boxing matches last for three rounds of three minutes each, rather than the current four rounds of two minutes each.
This change, along with the removal of protective headgear worn by amateurs, could apply to selected competitions from August onward, but not at the 2008 Olympics or the 2007 worlds, Baker said.
He also confirmed that plans to scrap AIBA's electronic scoring system in favor of a more transparent one would not be implemented until after the Beijing Olympics.
Under the old system, three of the five judges have to press a button within the same second to validate a blow. It will be replaced by one in which each judge counts blows separately, and the highest and lowest of the five judges' scores will be discarded.
"There are still some minor adjustments required," Baker said. "Therefore the reform recommendations, particularly those of the scoring system, will not be introduced until after the Beijing Olympic Games."
I can't see, with the way the sport has changed, them switching back to 3x3 and no headgear, as much as it might seem better or satisfy the older generation in the sport.Inter esting. I know there is solid proof that wearing headguards have reduced the instance of head injuries - will be interesting to see what the AIBA Medical Commission says on this one. The total time on 4-2 minutes rounds and 3-3 minutes rounds are the same - 11 minutes. So I don't really understand the rationale. Just have to wait and see.
I've read somewhere that headgear, while it prevents cuts, doesn't actually stop the brain from getting rattled around when you take a punch-I think the design of amateur gloves has more of an effect on it than the headgear (or so I seem to recall reading). I think the whole 4x2 thing is because it's a better work/rest ratio. With 3x3 you have 9 minutes of work, and...2 of rest? With the 4x2, you get 8 of work, and 3 of rest.boxmel wrote:Inter esting. I know there is solid proof that wearing headguards have reduced the instance of head injuries - will be interesting to see what the AIBA Medical Commission says on this one. The total time on 4-2 minutes rounds and 3-3 minutes rounds are the same - 11 minutes. So I don't really understand the rationale. Just have to wait and see.
Emile - I agree that there will be some tactical changes. I hope that combinations and BODY PUNCHES will now be counted properly. I think some inside fighting will be more effective as 1 or 2 judges will see the punches land whereas under the current computer scoring the punches rarely scored since it was difficult for 3 or more of the judges to see the inside punches land.emile wrote:I understand that the scoring criteria isn't changing, but in any system you're going to 'game' the system to your advantage. For example, in the current system, you need to make sure you land a punch that three of the five judges can see. So it's in your interest to keep distance and fight in the center of the ring, as you always tell peopple/
Given our speculation of how this might work, it's likely that a punch that only one judge sees will still have value, and a single clear punch could actually lose value, because the overall scores will be higher, and two of the judges recording of that punch may not count. So flurries might become more valuable - fighters who throw more punches might get more results, etc. I can't yet say how I think things might change, but I think this is bad news for programs that have totally optimized their fighters styles to fight under the current system. It won't make a bad fighter beat a good fighter - but between two closely matched guys, it could mean something significant.
Maybe all the discussion and criticism of the current scoring system over the last few years was heard by AIBA.boxmel wrote:I definitely understand your concern, Emile. An example is a boxer on the ropes where only one judge, maybe two, can see him, and are pushing high scores that, of course, would override anything the judges who can't see him might do. Hopefully, our boxers won't go back to boxing off the ropes or in the corners because it will still be better if they move in the middle of the ring so the majority of judges can see them. It's really going to be interesting to see how this plays out - especially since none of us have concrete information on how it will work. It's all just speculation at this point.