BoxRec

.

Hasn't it always been in practice just the ‘3 Point Must System’?

An even round is scored 10-10; a close round 10-9; one knockdown 10-8; two knockdowns 10-7; three knockdowns they stop the fight. The 6 through 1 are superfluous.

After seventy something years of corrupt and incompetent scoring what could possibly have been going through the minds of the Olympic Boxing Committee; do they really believe that the best way too clean-up the scoring in amateur boxing is to go with the 10 Point Must System? Did anyone in that room have any knowledge of the history of professional prize fighting? It makes me think that the ‘smartest guy in that room’ was one of the empty chairs.

The 1st round of the first Pacquiao-Marquez fight was a 10-6 round... One Judge made a subtraction math mistake on his scorecard and they didn't correct it.. And the Boxing Commissioners didn't correct it.. Pacquiao should have been declared the winner.. I actually had Marquez winning by 1 point, but the official result should have been a Pacman win not a draw -- because of the huge 10-6 opening round and the fouled up scorecard.

But we need to keep the 10-point must system.

They wave the 3 knockdown rule in most title fights... Firpo was knocked down 7 times by Dempsey in the first round then was knocked out of the ring by Firpo... Floyd Patterson was knocked down 7 times in the 3rd round by ingemar Johansson in their 1st fight... So it's possible somebody could be knocked down 8 times in a round and still be fit to continue.. I think the 20-point must system is ridiculous.. A 10-point system takes care of any reasonably possible contingencies.. The thing that frosts me is the points system isn't used very well.. If you beat the living crap out of somebody in a round, without taking a hit, you should get a 10-5 round not a 10-8 round.. With a flash knockdown, which sometimes causes little if any damage, you get a 10-8 round.. But you damned near half to beat somebody to death to get a 10-8 round if you don't score a knockdown.

Kalan wrote:The 1st round of the first Pacquiao-Marquez fight was a 10-6 round... One Judge made a subtraction math mistake on his scorecard and they didn't correct it.. And the Boxing Commissioners didn't correct it.. Pacquiao should have been declared the winner.. I actually had Marquez winning by 1 point, but the official result should have been a Pacman win not a draw -- because of the huge 10-6 opening round and the fouled up scorecard.

But we need to keep the 10-point must system.

They wave the 3 knockdown rule in most title fights... Firpo was knocked down 7 times by Dempsey in the first round then was knocked out of the ring by Firpo... Floyd Patterson was knocked down 7 times in the 3rd round by ingemar Johansson in their 1st fight... So it's possible somebody could be knocked down 8 times in a round and still be fit to continue.. I think the 20-point must system is ridiculous.. A 10-point system takes care of any reasonably possible contingencies.. The thing that frosts me is the points system isn't used very well.. If you beat the living crap out of somebody in a round, without taking a hit, you should get a 10-5 round not a 10-8 round.. With a flash knockdown, which sometimes causes little if any damage, you get a 10-8 round.. But you damned near half to beat somebody to death to get a 10-8 round if you don't score a knockdown.

All true my friend but most are exceptions - I read an interesting article about the Camacho - Rosario fight - had they used the 10 point must system the way you are suggesting, it was likely that Rosario not Camacho would have gotten the nod - Camacho won all his rounds by the 10-9 mark, where a more liberal use of the system would have given Rosario several 10-8 rounds and the decision - of course they didn't and whereas Camacho jabbed his way to many 10-9 close rounds, Rosario had several big rounds, hurting Camacho, but still only got an equivalent 10-9 score. - I still think it is hoot that the Olympic Boxing Committee thought going to the 'system' would get rid of corruption, come on you have admit that is funny!

Kalan wrote:The 1st round of the first Pacquiao-Marquez fight was a 10-6 round... One Judge made a subtraction math mistake on his scorecard and they didn't correct it.. And the Boxing Commissioners didn't correct it.. Pacquiao should have been declared the winner.. I actually had Marquez winning by 1 point, but the official result should have been a Pacman win not a draw -- because of the huge 10-6 opening round and the fouled up scorecard.

But we need to keep the 10-point must system.

They wave the 3 knockdown rule in most title fights... Firpo was knocked down 7 times by Dempsey in the first round then was knocked out of the ring by Firpo... Floyd Patterson was knocked down 7 times in the 3rd round by ingemar Johansson in their 1st fight... So it's possible somebody could be knocked down 8 times in a round and still be fit to continue.. I think the 20-point must system is ridiculous.. A 10-point system takes care of any reasonably possible contingencies.. The thing that frosts me is the points system isn't used very well.. If you beat the living crap out of somebody in a round, without taking a hit, you should get a 10-5 round not a 10-8 round.. With a flash knockdown, which sometimes causes little if any damage, you get a 10-8 round.. But you damned near half to beat somebody to death to get a 10-8 round if you don't score a knockdown.

P.S. I love it when judges can't add -

golden oldie wrote:So what happens when you get a guy like Oliver McCall who doesn't give a toss who hits him how hard or how often, because he KNOWS they can't hurt him? Should the other guy get awarded a 10 - 5 round because Oliver decides to take a round off?

Legit argument - I always felt that the Chavez-Taylor fight was a good example of that - Taylor landed often but Chavez was walking through them, but losing round after round - Taylor won the boxing match; Chavez won the fight - Chavez's limited number of landed punches ruined Taylor (he was never the same after that fight; spent days in the hospital afterwards) - Chavez looked unmarked when it was all said and done. - 'counting landed punches' as a manner of judging a prize fight (not an [amateur] boxing match) has its limits. - I have always felt HBO's "punch stats" was nonsense but Harold ("the unofficial A-hole") Letterman lived and died by them. - That's why his scoring often sucked (in my humble opinion.)

Clean effective punches make good contact... If you hurt or stagger an opponent in a round, and his greater number of connects have little effect, then you should get the round... On A-Hole Harold Lederman... He's the one guy who thinks a punch landed... then watches the slo-mo video after the round showing the punch clearly missed... and he still thinks the punch landed.

I'm referring to Mayweather-Castillo 2 and Mayweather-Hatton... I swear Lederman is stone blind.

APerno wrote:.

Hasn't it always been in practice just the ‘3 Point Must System’?

An even round is scored 10-10; a close round 10-9; one knockdown 10-8; two knockdowns 10-7; three knockdowns they stop the fight. The 6 through 1 are superfluous.

After seventy something years of corrupt and incompetent scoring what could possibly have been going through the minds of the Olympic Boxing Committee; do they really believe that the best way too clean-up the scoring in amateur boxing is to go with the 10 Point Must System? Did anyone in that room have any knowledge of the history of professional prize fighting? It makes me think that the ‘smartest guy in that room’ was one of the empty chairs.

Right now, it doesn't even matter at all if a guy gets hurt does it? It's even worse system than the pros. At least in the professional boxing, if Fighter A lands the better shots but fighter B lands more, it might be called even. In the amateurs, it's simply who (supposedly) lands more.

It is too bad that judges usually do it this way in professional boxing. It's really taking the easy way out for the judges. They don't have to it this way. If Fighter A completely dominates around one, and Fighter B is just a little better in round 2, it is almost always 19-19 after two; even though fighter A should be ahead.

Occasionally they do score rounds 10-8 without a knockdown, but usually a fighter has to be hurt pretty severely for that to happen.

If you really think about it, it is just stupid that a guy can get decked twice in the same round, get battered all over the ring, and still get 7 points. Why should he get 70% of the points that the other guy is getting?

That's a good question... He shouldn't... Fencing is scored electronically... Someday Boxing will be scored that way and take human error out of the equation... But for the next 200 years they should come up with a better system for scoring fights so fans witness fewer robberies.

I would give the loser of a round ZERO points... An even round would score ZERO points for each boxer.. And I would give the winner of a round 1 to 10 points depending on how dominant he was during the round.. Losing a round 10-9 after getting out-punched 15 to 3 is ridiculous.