BoxRec

We all see decisions that could go either way, sometimes they go one way, sometimes they go the other. When you see a fighter clearly dominate a fight, and the other fighter get the nod, it gets a little hard to take. How do you get around it? Get interstate judges for state titles and international judges for national titles? Have paid appeals to TV referees who can review the vision after the fight and declare a NC if there is a clear disagreement on the call (and a rematch)? I'm not sure what the answer is, and the traditionalists will say keep it as it is.
I just think its not being fair to either competitor - often the winner knows he didn't do enough (usually without saying so), and the loser is justifiably upset.
I think there must be a better way, It has occurred in other sports - cricket and rugby in particular, where the TMO has been introduced. This has undoubtedly helped these sports, and the competitors have got used to the change.
Are we still in the dark ages, or should it keep the same way?
Having pride in boxing, I see the comments from both those in the fraternity and the general public causing harm to the sport -"It's all rigged anyway" "corrupt sport" etc. etc. and I think while the poor decisions exist this attitude will exist and will (and is) damage boxing.
It is the taboo subject, and I know judges do have a hard job, and I respect them greatly. This is a criticism of no-one in particular, just a general comment to see what folk think
Open for comment.

I agree with some of your comments Paddy. But bringing in diffrent judges would make little difference. Every judge see's a diffrent angle. And in really close rounds there are sometimes 1 or 2 shots in it. If your view is blocked for a few exchanges it can change the round. Judges also have to assess power in shots and whether there hurting there opponent also.
If there is a fight with a clear winner. And the judges go wide the other way. There might be a problem. If it's a really tight fight and is a close split or majority decision there's not much that can be done. Whether there are imported judges or local judges.

You also have to remember. A boxing contest is really 4,6,8,10 or 12 separate fights. One guy can dominate 3 rounds in an 8 round fight. But only slightly lose 5 rounds and lose an 8 round fight.
Maybe it's the scoring system that's wrong. If judges could give a 10 -9.5 instead of 10-9 in super close rounds. It might reward the guy dominating the rounds he won.

It's a rough situation and even if the system was changed to allow 9.5 rounds incompetent/corrupt judges would still stuff it up. Its a weird system we have in pro combat sports that a round where one fighter just edges it is scored the same as when there is a clear winner of the round and in some cases some very dominant rounds.

Side note: how did CJ Ross manage to get a job being a professional judge while clearly being blind D

I do agree P4P1. The system is slightly flawed. It doesn't reward a fighter that dominates rounds, Against just slightly winning a round.

Should there be more emphasis placed on the 10-8 round? Where a guy dominates a round its 10-8 and where he just does enough to win or edges the other guys its 10-9. A KD and a dominate round is 10-7. Where as a KD and a close round thereafter or before the KD is still 10-8?

Completely agree Sweet P. Its not the shades of grey decisions that I, and fighters get upset with. It is the clear winners which don't get the decision. It seems to be much more for fighters fighting away from home. If there is true objectivity, then there should be no such thing as "home town advantage" or "you have the dominate the champ to take away his belt" in the scoring which we see all the time. The rounds are scored individually, and it is a flaw that a "It's really close, maybe red just edged it thinking back on it" and "red clearly dominated" get scored the same - but that is a slightly different argument.
If however, a fighter, say in the blue corner, hits targets with cleaner, harder punches for 7 of 8 rounds that clearly hurt an opponent in the red corner, while the red corner only has glancing blows in 3 second flurries in those rounds that has no effect on the blue corner, I find it really hard to stomach that Red corner wins. I know it at ringside, and the whole crowd knows it, even when they are barracking for the red corner.

I'm just saying if there is a clear bias, there should be some recourse. In cricket, the referee (umpire) is only overruled where there is a clear incorrect decision, not the margin calls (whether right or wrong).

On review some bouts stopped due to cuts, that are then found to be head clashes are ruled NC at later dates. Is it so hard when there is clear bias to do the same?

Really what I am saying is that this is damaging boxing, and if there is a solution, should it not be sought?

N2 Shape wrote:Should there be more emphasis placed on the 10-8 round? Where a guy dominates a round its 10-8 and where he just does enough to win or edges the other guys its 10-9. A KD and a dominate round is 10-7. Where as a KD and a close round thereafter or before the KD is still 10-8?

Yes mate,I think it should

with 10-9.5 scoring. Bradley would certainly have not got decision over Pac

There's a certain Aussie State regulating bodie's score recorders that have problem adding 10/9, 9/10, 10/10, 8/10...so spare them torture of adding 10/9.5, 9.5/10 etc...during 1-minute rest period

lol.
calculators are allowed

I remember the Tomlinson Klassen fight. An old aboriginal guy phoned the boxing radio show, since stopped unfortunately. He was outraged and thought Klassen won every round? I watched the same fight and thought Will won almost every round. Each round was competitive and close. I don! T think I would like to argue with this bloke because he seemed quite knowledgable on boxing matters. Just shows how differently people see a competitive bout.

I've just started judging and the job is not as easy as it looks. Some rounds can be very close and you have to go one way or the other. A fighter can dominate the round and win 10-9 but can just get shaded in the next round and its an even fight. It's a tough job but one I've really been enjoying.

The main problem is the scoring system is OPINION based, have you ever had the same opinion on every little issue as another person?
The first 2 rules of boxing (ring generalship, effective aggression) a judge must decide whether boxer A or boxer B had the advantage.
This is not like other codes e.g. Rugby League a try is worth 4 points, Cricket if you hit the ball over the fence it is 6 points etc. these are clear black and white rules, and whenever there are grey areas as there are in any sport the commission does everything to eliminate them. Also in these sports there are human errors but they usually aren't as significant as in judging a fight in boxing.
Boxing rules are all grey areas.
Then you have the difference a fight appears on TV compared to live at the arena.
Then you have the different views a judge has throughout the fight, It is hard enough with the speed of punches to tell which one lands on TV, now try to score with a fighters back to you live.
Now as for the general public having different scoring to judges how many of us including myself have completed a ref or judging course.
Do you think a rugby league player who has represented his country and been involved with the game for 30 years knows the rules better then a ref? Now how about the public who do it for social/fitness? It is the same in boxing.
We could try and change amount of rounds to odd instead of even but sometimes when a fight is close it should be a draw as there are draws in every sport.
The scoring system could be changed but there are hundreds of scenarios which will change a score.
E.g. If boxer A scores a KD at start of round, but boxer B comes back to win the round and score a KD at end, how do you score it.
1 point off boxer B for KD, 1 point off Boxer A for KD and 1 point off Boxer A for lose of round = 10-9 boxer B, 10-8 boxer B.
How many times do you see a boxer win a round but have a flash KD against him and lose round 10-9, is this not an even round? 1 point off for KD, 1 point off other guy for losing round.
How do you score an exchange if boxer A throws a 4 punch combination and boxer B defends/catches 3 of them, that is 75% he defended. Does that give him anything or does it go with the guy who landed only 25% of his punches? Now did the punch land clean or have any power in it?
I am more upset with the scoring and feel we need to change it when a fighter wins a fight through work rate not his boxing skill.

kimf wrote:The main problem is the scoring system is OPINION based, have you ever had the same opinion on every little issue as another person?
The first 2 rules of boxing (ring generalship, effective aggression) a judge must decide whether boxer A or boxer B had the advantage.
This is not like other codes e.g. Rugby League a try is worth 4 points, Cricket if you hit the ball over the fence it is 6 points etc. these are clear black and white rules, and whenever there are grey areas as there are in any sport the commission does everything to eliminate them. Also in these sports there are human errors but they usually aren't as significant as in judging a fight in boxing.
Boxing rules are all grey areas.
Then you have the difference a fight appears on TV compared to live at the arena.
Then you have the different views a judge has throughout the fight, It is hard enough with the speed of punches to tell which one lands on TV, now try to score with a fighters back to you live.
Now as for the general public having different scoring to judges how many of us including myself have completed a ref or judging course.
Do you think a rugby league player who has represented his country and been involved with the game for 30 years knows the rules better then a ref? Now how about the public who do it for social/fitness? It is the same in boxing.
We could try and change amount of rounds to odd instead of even but sometimes when a fight is close it should be a draw as there are draws in every sport.
The scoring system could be changed but there are hundreds of scenarios which will change a score.
E.g. If boxer A scores a KD at start of round, but boxer B comes back to win the round and score a KD at end, how do you score it.
1 point off boxer B for KD, 1 point off Boxer A for KD and 1 point off Boxer A for lose of round = 10-9 boxer B, 10-8 boxer B.
How many times do you see a boxer win a round but have a flash KD against him and lose round 10-9, is this not an even round? 1 point off for KD, 1 point off other guy for losing round.
How do you score an exchange if boxer A throws a 4 punch combination and boxer B defends/catches 3 of them, that is 75% he defended. Does that give him anything or does it go with the guy who landed only 25% of his punches? Now did the punch land clean or have any power in it?
I am more upset with the scoring and feel we need to change it when a fighter wins a fight through work rate not his boxing skill.

absolutely agree with everything you say, which is exactly my point. Is there a way it could be made better and fairer? I'm not too much into the crowd opinion - it generally depends on who has the more supporters (or more vocal supporters )there on the night. Does it say something though if all the supporters are for one boxer, and he gets the nod, then they are all quiet in stunned silence? The other point is impartiality of judges - in certain states there seems to be a pattern of questionable scoring which drives opinion (even on this forum). Where there's smoke, is there fire?

fox wrote:I've just started judging and the job is not as easy as it looks. Some rounds can be very close and you have to go one way or the other. A fighter can dominate the round and win 10-9 but can just get shaded in the next round and its an even fight. It's a tough job but one I've really been enjoying.

good stuff fox! It certainly isn't as easy as it looks, and when you have to score it round by round, at the time, the resultant overall score show a wider score margin than the fight indicated. Especially when a fighter just edges 8 out of 10 rounds, then gets dominated in the other 2!

PaddyGold wrote:

fox wrote:I've just started judging and the job is not as easy as it looks. Some rounds can be very close and you have to go one way or the other. A fighter can dominate the round and win 10-9 but can just get shaded in the next round and its an even fight. It's a tough job but one I've really been enjoying.

good stuff fox! It certainly isn't as easy as it looks, and when you have to score it round by round, at the time, the resultant overall score show a wider score margin than the fight indicated. Especially when a fighter just edges 8 out of 10 rounds, then gets dominated in the other 2!

That's right mate. A good example of that was the Dennis Hogan v Leroy Brown fight. 2 judges had it 98-92 and the third had it 97-93. Leroy certainly had his moments in a real competitive fight, but Hogan shaded the majority of rounds. Good fight.

You both make some very sound points Kimf and fox, good to see you got into judging finally, too, fox. The fight that always comes to mind for me when it comes to subjectivity of judges is Shannan Taylor-Serge Yannick: judges Malcolm Bulner and Andrew Campbell had the fight for Serge, 116-111 and 115-112 respectively whilest judge Dale Westerman had the fight 109-118 to Shannan, a very wide margin of difference between the first two and the later judges. I was there, ringside, for that fight and can honestly say that each judge had it right, regardless of the uproar that followed.

Westerman certainly knows his boxing and afterwards sent his card to the states along with the fight video to clear his name, he was right, so too were the others. Westerman scored the fight giving aggression and effectiveness priority while the other two scored the fight placing more weight on punches landed.

"Some rounds can be very close and you have to go one way or the other." Interesting you should say that, fox, as years ago, judges were to call an even round even, a 10-10, that's discouraged now, and wrongfully so, in my opinion. I understand that today judges are more than encouraged, almost forced, to score a round one way or the other, and in that fight I mentioned earlier, one thing that kept coming up from the judges was that if they were allowed to score the even rounds even, the cards would've been very close.

Some experienced judges still score a round 10-10 but I've been told not to score even rounds. There are many factors where you can actually give the round one way. So even though its a close round to the eye, that's why you might have some different scores on the cards. You can only score the fight as you see it and be able to explain why you give the round 10-9 when the other 2 judges might have went the other way. Lets just hope we get things right.

See if you can't get a hold of the fight I mentioned and watch and tell me your thoughts.

I know the fight your talking about Dale. I thought Yannick won it in my opinion. But there were a lot of close rounds.

Sweet P wrote:I know the fight your talking about Dale. I thought Yannick won it in my opinion. But there were a lot of close rounds.

Yeah, and fair enough too mate, like I said, I can see both outcomes, I would've hated judging that fight, you're one of our regions best judges and I respect your opinion very much. The decision may well have boiled down the same, but surely the differences wouldn't have been so wide if the judges scored it the old way of even rounds being 10-10, and there wouldn't have been the uproar about the scoring of that fight.

Sweat P, I think it's a great fight to bring up for the judging objective/subjective argument, I'm sure though, you're sick of me banging on about it as I mention it every fourth conversation I have with you But I do know that Dale Westerman had no outside interest in that fight, and I don't doubt at least one of the other judges, this is why I like to use this fight as an example.

fox wrote:Some experienced judges still score a round 10-10 but I've been told not to score even rounds. There are many factors where you can actually give the round one way. So even though its a close round to the eye, that's why you might have some different scores on the cards. You can only score the fight as you see it and be able to explain why you give the round 10-9 when the other 2 judges might have went the other way. Lets just hope we get things right.

I agree.Scoring 10-10 rounds and 10-8 rounds would help. The issue is magnified if you think the round is even, but can't score it as such. In that case the subjectivity of scoring plays a major part, and becomes very much the view you get.
It's obviously wrong to score a round 10-9 if it's pretty much flipping a coin and also scoring a round and also 10-9 if he completely dominates it but doesn't knock his opponent down. I feel that this would make "questionable" scoring more accountable. I don't think half point scores would help.