My point in bringing up the recent string of robberies at the Olympics is to point out that while the intentions of the computer scoring system are noble, and they may sound good in theory, in practice it doesn't work. It is every bit as broken and corrupt as the pro system, yet it doesn't have the advantage of being able to judge knockdowns, if a fighter is hurt, if a fighter is landing harder or more effective shots, or any number of intangibles that can be accounted for by the pro system.
1) There are several methods of accountability. First off, the ESS Operator sees what the various judges are scoring or not. If there's reason to believe either corruption or incompetence, you can see real time who was scored. Secondly, the ESS does allow the ability to print all activity in a bout with a time stamp. So yes, I can see who recorded a blow when and where. Thirdly, there is a judge eval report available. It doesn't work the same way as the old one-second window, but it does show how often judges are included in the similar scores or their scores are omitted.
2) While there may be a way to game this system, I can't think of one. Other than exerting a very small influence here or there (we're talking a point here, or lack of a point there). If you go too heavily in one direction, your scores are outside of the norm and mathematically eliminated.
3) The one thing where I HAVE seen the ESS behave weirdly is when you have, how shall I put this, a bunch of judges with an off night. If you don't have 5 judges seeing at least approximately the same bout, things tend to get skewed somewhat unpredictably. By this I mean lots of variance between scores, like for a given round, if one judge has 10-2 for red, and the other has 14-3 for blue, and everyone else varies along the spectrum.
I think the system, as designed, actually does what it's supposed to do, which is attempt to create an 'objective score.' I'll even go so far as to declare it a mathematically elegant solution. The catch is, that boxing is not math :-) and that if the judging inputs are not good, the outputs won't be either.
I have to admit, though, I'm getting a bit sick of hearing Teddy Atlas complain about things. Not only does he not know what he's talking about, but he's complaining about the wrong thing. It's not the system causing the outcomes he doesn't like. It's the judging itself.
yet it doesn't have the advantage of being able to judge knockdowns, if a fighter is hurt, if a fighter is landing harder or more effective shots, or any number of intangibles that can be accounted for by the pro system
Pro scoring and amateur scoring are two entirely different animals and are not to be compared. A knockdown counts as one punch if it is a legal blow; and part of the criteria is that the blow must land with the weight of the shoulder behind it. Personally, I don't count pitty-pat punches, unless I'm judging 8 or 9 year old. I know I've posted ad nauseam what the amateur scoring criteria is in order to explain the difference from the pro criteria. I guess no one reads my posts. :(
yet it doesn't have the advantage of being able to judge knockdowns, if a fighter is hurt, if a fighter is landing harder or more effective shots, or any number of intangibles that can be accounted for by the pro system
Pro scoring and amateur scoring are two entirely different animals and are not to be compared. A knockdown counts as one punch if it is a legal blow; and part of the criteria is that the blow must land with the weight of the shoulder behind it. Personally, I don't count pitty-pat punches, unless I'm judging 8 or 9 year old. I know I've posted ad nauseam what the amateur scoring criteria is in order to explain the difference from the pro criteria. I guess no one reads my posts. :(
Haha it isn't that I'm not reading them, or that I don't understand amateur scoring. Trust me, I do. It's that I think the amateur scoring criteria is silly, and that I would welcome pro scoring in the amateurs because, frankly, it makes more sense. I wish there could be an absolutely objective way of scoring boxing that was completely accurate every time no matter what, but there simply can't be. With basketball, for instance, where the only way to score is to put a ball through a hoop, it's quite easy to have objectivity. However, when you have a sport like boxing, where there are so many intangibles beyond "did a punch land in a scoring area or not", such a scoring system fails because numbers do not, and cannot, tell the whole story.
Haha it isn't that I'm not reading them, or that I don't understand amateur scoring. Trust me, I do.
Whew! I was beginning to feel ignored.
It's that I think the amateur scoring criteria is silly,
I think pro scoring is silly.
and that I would welcome pro scoring in the amateurs because, frankly, it makes more sense.
Why does it make more sense? If you think the judges have problems now with legal scoring blows in the scoring area with the knuckle part of the glove - can you imagine what it would be like leaving effective aggression or ring generalship interpretations up to each judge? That's totally subjective. Arghhhh! To me, it's just easier to count punches.
Haha it isn't that I'm not reading them, or that I don't understand amateur scoring. Trust me, I do.
Whew! I was beginning to feel ignored.
It's that I think the amateur scoring criteria is silly,
I think pro scoring is silly.
and that I would welcome pro scoring in the amateurs because, frankly, it makes more sense.
Why does it make more sense? If you think the judges have problems now with legal scoring blows in the scoring area with the knuckle part of the glove - can you imagine what it would be like leaving effective aggression or ring generalship interpretations up to each judge? That's totally subjective. Arghhhh! To me, it's just easier to count punches.
-Haha I'm glad I could cheer you up.
-Touche.
-You're right--it is easier to just count punches. It's also easier to get C's in school than A's, but that doesn't make it better. I believe that if a fighter is knocked down or hurt, that should count for something. I also believe that how well a punch lands, rather than simply if it lands, should be considered.
Another thing about the scoring which is wrong. A punch that is partially blocked does not count. When Beterbiev throws a punch and it hits a glove but continues on to land on the face and is so hard that it has an effect on the other boxer, it should count. The shell defense works wonders with this scoring system but a boxer can still be getting hit, bloody, and hurt and yet the opponent doesn't get any points. That is wrong. In fact a punch can score a knockdown and cause a stoppage and yet the judges wouldn't have scored it.
Another thing about the scoring which is wrong. A punch that is partially blocked does not count. When Beterbiev throws a punch and it hits a glove but continues on to land on the face and is so hard that it has an effect on the other boxer, it should count. The shell defense works wonders with this scoring system but a boxer can still be getting hit, bloody, and hurt and yet the opponent doesn't get any points. That is wrong. In fact a punch can score a knockdown and cause a stoppage and yet the judges wouldn't have scored it.
But, Dennis - that's the difference between amateur and pro scoring. Doesn't make pro scoring right unless AIBA decides to turn amateur boxing into pro boxing. You are talking apples and oranges in regard to scoring.
-You're right--it is easier to just count punches. It's also easier to get C's in school than A's, but that doesn't make it better. I believe that if a fighter is knocked down or hurt, that should count for something.
Again - apples and oranges (amateur vs. pro scoring criteria). A knockdown counts as one punch (if it's legal, etc.). I wonder how many amateur boxers would start looking for the KO punch if it was worth 2 points rather than relying on boxing skills to win? And I don't know how you would determine 'hurt.' If a boxer is really hurt or outclassed or quits, the ref will stop the bout. Yes, the pros keep fighting even if one is hurt but we don't do that in amateur boxing and I don't want to see that become the norm.
I also believe that how well a punch lands, rather than simply if it lands, should be considered.
Amateur scoring criteria states that the punch must have the weight of the shoulder behind it. I don't score punches that simply land unless they are 8 or 9 year olds who don't have any power. Pitty pat punches and 'shoe shining' don't count.
If amateur boxing criteria stays the same, the pro enthusiasts will just have to live with the fact that the scoring is totally opposite that of pro scoring and quit whining. If not, then ya'll are totally vindicated - but you'll still find something to be upset about.
boxmel wrote:
If amateur boxing criteria stays the same, the pro enthusiasts will just have to live with the fact that the scoring is totally opposite that of pro scoring and quit whining. If not, then ya'll are totally vindicated - but you'll still find something to be upset about.
AFAIK the intention of AIBA is to use the WSB rules for amateur boxing in the future. Do you happen to know what the judging criteria are in the WSB? Like in pro boxing it's 1) clean effective punching, 2) xxx etc, but I could find nothing like that in the WSB rules document. Only that a judge can score a round 10-9, 10-8 or 10-7 depending on their performances. Certainly there must be more detailed criterias than that?
boxmel wrote:But, Dennis - that's the difference between amateur and pro scoring. Doesn't make pro scoring right unless AIBA decides to turn amateur boxing into pro boxing.
But Mel, can't you tell that is exactly what AIBA is trying to do slowly but surely? Fans and participants of amateur boxing are so upset with the current system/results/state of boxing, that they would almost look at any change as a good thing at this point. AIBA's first step was to create the WSB and allow those boxers who were paid to fight to still box in the Olympics. Now any pro turning after London will be able to box in Brazil, where they will most likely compete without headgear. Amateur boxing rules also now allow for prize money (that's what it amounts to) to be awarded to winners of local shows. Again, this doesn't sound like amateur boxing.
If you are going to box with on headgear, that may as well be professional boxing. For those who say that headgear doesn't matter, let your boxer box without the headgear and my boxer will elect to use it. Now if they go to a 20pt or 10pt must, it's just another step closer to blurring the line and making what currently is amateur boxing just a pro boxing minor league. In many sports this may be the case, but what about the amateur boxers who compete in the sport without the goal of turning professional?
But Mel, can't you tell that is exactly what AIBA is trying to do slowly but surely?
Yep - and I'm not one bit happy about any of the proposed changes or direction AIBA is going in. I'm not a pro fan and I won't be an USAB-pro fan, either. Sigh. Maybe I'm just too old to go with the flow.
But Mel, can't you tell that is exactly what AIBA is trying to do slowly but surely?
Yep - and I'm not one bit happy about any of the proposed changes or direction AIBA is going in. I'm not a pro fan and I won't be an USAB-pro fan, either. Sigh. Maybe I'm just too old to go with the flow.
I'm with you!! I don't like the changes either, especially the head gear.
Certainly there must be more detailed criterias than that?
No criteria available at this time. Hopefully we'll know next year.
I hope there will be some sort of resistance against scrapping the headgear. Not particularly interested in seeing a bunch of WOs in tournaments. I would go on a rant on the upcoming rule changes here but I'll refrain from that and just say that I personally fear that the direction boxing is taking may get it kicked out of the olympics eventually.
hope there will be some sort of resistance against scrapping the headgear. Not particularly interested in seeing a bunch of WOs in tournaments. I would go on a rant on the upcoming rule changes here but I'll refrain from that and just say that I personally fear that the direction boxing is taking may get it kicked out of the olympics eventually.
From what I've heard, the no headgear will apply only to elite boxers, ages 17 and above, and in international tournaments only. We will still wear headgear in all matches in the U.S. I would guess that the IOC has signed off on the no headgear in the 2016 Olympics (I think Wu is on the IOC EC now). I really believe the biggie that has the best chance of amateur boxing being kicked out of the Olympics is going back to manual scoring.
hope there will be some sort of resistance against scrapping the headgear. Not particularly interested in seeing a bunch of WOs in tournaments. I would go on a rant on the upcoming rule changes here but I'll refrain from that and just say that I personally fear that the direction boxing is taking may get it kicked out of the olympics eventually.
From what I've heard, the no headgear will apply only to elite boxers, ages 17 and above, and in international tournaments only. We will still wear headgear in all matches in the U.S. I would guess that the IOC has signed off on the no headgear in the 2016 Olympics (I think Wu is on the IOC EC now). I really believe the biggie that has the best chance of amateur boxing being kicked out of the Olympics is going back to manual scoring.
Me too. Judging from what I have seen in the WSB controversial results will be commonplace. The olympics can only be worse.
I usually just watch the continental and world wide championships so that doesn't ease my worries about WOs significantly.
