BoxRec

bobmee wrote:I was surprised to see, while looking up the first Leonard-Duran fight, that the rematch was very close after 7 rounds. The general perception has become that Leonard toyed with Duran, but the scores were 68-66 twice and 67-66.

i remember when i first watched it thinking leonard owned him.

but when u watch things a bit more carefully u realise it's closer than u first think.

leonard could con the best of judges.

10-10 rds should never be used.

Someone has always done something better or more eye catching in a rd, two boxers have never boxed exactly equal.

I like the fact Vegas judges dont score even rds & intend to find a winner.

Autobarn wrote:I'm a bit mixed with even rounds.

It seems well out of order to have lots of even rounds.

It isn't that hard to "split" the work and decide who did better.

In a 12 round fight, I don't mind one even round, because 2 evenly matched fighters could win 6 rds each and have a tie. If one round is too hard to seperrate them, one guy ends up winning by, say, 6-5-1 in rounds and you have a winner.

overhand_right wrote:10-10 rds should never be used.

Someone has always done something better or more eye catching in a rd, two boxers have never boxed exactly equal.

I like the fact Vegas judges dont score even rds & intend to find a winner.

disagree! say you have a 'feeling out' opening round, where neither guy does or lands anything substantial, I'd say thats a 10-10 whereas others would 'split' them and award a 10-9.

Then compare that to ooh something like round 5 of Lewis/Holyfield, where LL clearly put some hurt on Evander, controlled the round, etc, but didn't score a KD. Now, that would also be a 10-9. In my book, that's out of order, scoring those rounds the same. But, each to their own eh! There's plenty of room for improv when it comes to scoring fights!

ps. speaking of LL/EH, didn't eugenia williams give that round 5 to Holyfield?!? hehe, now thats dodgy scoring !

Terry D wrote:

Autobarn wrote:

bobmee wrote:didn't 1 judge in leonard-duran 1 score 10 even rds.
**********

This is true. Scorecards for that one were 145-144 Harry Gibbs , 146-144 Raymond Baldeyrou and a weird 148-147 from Angelo Poletti... assuming nobody gave a 10-8 round, and I can't remember any reason why they would have done, that's Gibbs: 6-5 with 4 even, Baldeyrou 6-4 with 5 even and Poletti 3-2 with 10 even... wouldn't happen now. 19 rounds even out of 45.

The earlier post about Hagler-Leonard wasn't right, though. If you score even rounds in Vegas you get a one-way ticket to Utah.

I was surprised to see, while looking up the first Leonard-Duran fight, that the rematch was very close after 7 rounds. The general perception has become that Leonard toyed with Duran, but the scores were 68-66 twice and 67-66.

yes, i agree there. it was very nip and tuck. leonard was moving, and shoeshining. but so much of it was out of range - and he was moving away as he was throwing the shots. it's like he was fighting a guy who was standing slightly in front of duran. duran seemed baffled at this tactic, which i took as very negative from leonard. my take is duran wasn't outclassed. but that roberto was frustrated, pissed off and not in great shape and that he finally said to himself "eff it, this is nonsense."

i have never seen it as a leonard masterclass.

My mistake, it was Hagler-Duran, six even rounds and I don't think the ref ever worked in Vegas again, as Bob states. Crazy to hand in six even ones, especially in such a big fight.

The same judge (one assumes, a Canadian) also scored one of the early rounds 10-8 for Hagler when there was no knockdown and it wasn't even one-sided. I know this is not on the theme of 'even' rounds but some of the worst scoring I can think of came in the last two rounds of the Orlando Canizales-Billy Hardy IBF bantamweight title encounter in Sunderland in 1990. Billy clearly dominated those rounds yet the Italian prick scored them for the half-blinded Canizales and cost Billy the title.

Damaen Kelly's fight for a title couple of years ago, that must have had some awful round scoring.

overhand_right wrote:10-10 rds should never be used.

Someone has always done something better or more eye catching in a rd, two boxers have never boxed exactly equal.

I like the fact Vegas judges dont score even rds & intend to find a winner.

Bullshit.

If a round is close enough that you have to sit and humm and hah and work out who to give it to, then it should be an even round. It's not about it being 'exactly equal' someone has to clearly dominate the round to win it.

The boxing scoring system only allows for a one point split barring a knockdown in most instances, it is rare a 10-8 is given without a knockdown.

That being the case - if you have a fight where two fighters are very evenly matched in every round, and it's hard to split then for six rounds, and then one of them was to clearly dominate the final six rounds, it would be scored a draw, even though one fighter has had six properly dominant rounds. This is a major flaw with the scoring system.

Either the scoring system should be changed - so that any clearly dominant round is 10-8 or we have to have 10 10 rounds.

Boxings scoring system sucks, and this is why we get so many poor decisions, because in close rounds the judges vary in who they score it to, and you end up with huge swings in scoring.

Yes and if you are FORCED to pick a winner just for the sake of it, when you honestly think they were level, then you arbitrarily making up to a 2-pt swing compared to another judge, and for no valid reason.

oliverfennell wrote:Yes and if you are FORCED to pick a winner just for the sake of it, when you honestly think they were level, then you arbitrarily making up to a 2-pt swing compared to another judge, and for no valid reason.

agreed mate, i don't like the blanket ban on even rounds myself. some rounds neither man does enough to deserve to win it.

I don't mind2 maybe 3 even rounds over a 12 rounder, but I think once you get in to 4-5-6 even rounds its just a joke.

Scoring is a conundrum.

On the one hand, it seems as logical as a bit of Mr. Spock analysis that scoring should be changed to greater reflect the actual level of dominance in a round. Why are rounds in which one fighter beats his opponent from rope to corner and back again almost always scored the same as one he just edges if he doesn’t score a knockdown? A fighter has to absolutely wipe the floor with his foe to score a ten eight absent of a KD these days, and even then it happens rarely. Surely, it’s as plain as the flab on Arreola’s midriff that it would be fairer to score more 10-8 and 10-7 rounds for absolute dominance.

That would also have the added benefit of negating the need to score as many even rounds. If incredibly tight rounds could be scored 10-9 and have less impact on a fight’s outcome than a clear win for a round, scored 10-8, or a real thrashing without a KD, scored 10-7, then it would make the whole thing fairer. Further, in this system where judges are given more free reign to actually pass judgment on individual rounds, there would be more 9-9 rounds, or 9-8 rounds where one fighter had won the round, yet had been knocked down.

So that would make sense, and would certainly solve the problem where one fighter wins five rounds by whitewash, and has seven other rounds which are touch and go but which he might have won, but still loses the fight, when clearly he had won based on the overall flow.

But on the other hand, this system would obviously lead to far more scoring controversy and go against the general trend toward standardization and against letting personal subjectivity affect the outcome. For instance, it would only take two rounds to be score 10-8 to cancel out four rounds scored 10-9, and where the line is drawn would be very much in the hands of judges.

Clearly the cry ‘robbery’ would be heard far more if that kind of scoring was introduced.

It seems paradoxical that by instituting a system to make things fairer and more logical could actually have the opposite affect. This, I believe, is the key problem affecting scoring, and this is why they don't move from the current ten points must system in the way it's currently applied. They are aware of the paradox.

What are the opinions of the forum?

DavidPayne wrote:I don't mind2 maybe 3 even rounds over a 12 rounder, but I think once you get in to 4-5-6 even rounds its just a joke.

depends how they fight! If you've got 3 rounds scored as even, would you then not score any more even rounds just because you think you're gonna turn in 'too many'??

Not if it means my favourite wont win x.

lol.

I think we should revert to 'coming up to scratch' london prize ring style!

Mensa07 wrote:lol.

I think we should revert to 'coming up to scratch' london prize ring style!

I would really love to see some fights under London Prize Ring rules.

I suspect I'd get bored of all the wrestling after a while, but I'd just like to see how they would pan out and what kind of style one would need to make it work in that system.

Carbo wrote:

Mensa07 wrote:lol.

I think we should revert to 'coming up to scratch' london prize ring style!

I would really love to see some fights under London Prize Ring rules.

I suspect I'd get bored of all the wrestling after a while, but I'd just like to see how they would pan out and what kind of style one would need to make it work in that system.

yeah I'd love to have seen how they went down too, it does sound pretty brutal tho.

who out of todays crop would make a good LPR fighter I wonder.

Mensa07 wrote:

Carbo wrote:

Mensa07 wrote:lol.

I think we should revert to 'coming up to scratch' london prize ring style!

I would really love to see some fights under London Prize Ring rules.

I suspect I'd get bored of all the wrestling after a while, but I'd just like to see how they would pan out and what kind of style one would need to make it work in that system.

yeah I'd love to have seen how they went down too, it does sound pretty brutal tho.

who out of todays crop would make a good LPR fighter I wonder.

Two types, I reckon: aggressive swarmers who can take most punches on the forehead and not on the chin and can get onto a guys chest and wrestle and work and bang away hard; and guys who can slip and pace themselves and potshot accurately.