BoxRec

This is a topic that I think should be discussed more often, because I believe there are certain problems in the way alot of judges score fights that don't reflect accurately on who's winning a bout. Let me present a hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. In round 1, fighter A barely catches fighter B with a shot to the chin as B is leaning away. B is slightly off balance, goes down, and of course it's ruled a knockdown. He's not hurt, and the rest of the round is very even. In round 2, B catches A with several big shots and rocks him good, A is steady on his feet though and is punching back. Round 3 goes exactly the same as round 2, with B totally dominating the action. Now here's the problem. If you were to look at the scorecards after three rounds, it's almost a guarantee that at least one judge has the bout at 28-28.

So what could be done to ensure that close bouts are scored more accurately ? I'll have some suggestions later.

My personal pet peeve is giving a guy points for "being busy", which all too often translates to rewarding him for throwing and missing punches. I think that punch counting has been taken far too seriously and that less credit is given for harder more effective blows. Too much like amateur boxing; stand there and throw lots of punches and the judges count 'em up. Not enough credit given for hard punches and no credit is given for defense and nobody even asks what ring generalship is these days.
As to how I score, these days I am very bitter. I had Hopkins ahead by 4 against Taylor, if that is an answer.

Good points Tiredoldandgray. However I might disagree although very slightly. I'll still give a round to a fighter who's busier, even when his punches are being blocked, IF his opponent is doing nothing at all offensively. But perhaps you'd agree.

Another problem I see is this. How many times have you heard someone say (even a commentator) "That round was really hard to call but I gave it to fighter A 10-9, followed by, "That was almost a 10-8 round for fighter B" BUT he still scored 10-9, which means if this is the 2nd round, he's scoring the fight even at 19-19 which is ridiculous.

Yes, I agree, if the defensive fighter is throwing nothing back.

There should be more use of the ten points in the system, that is very true. I remember when the scoring system in England still allowed for 1/2 points- a 10-91/2 round for example- and the commentators on the broadcast praised that idea to the heavens and what a shame the US system didn't allow for that. Huh? Why not have 10-9 be the margin in very close rounds, 10-8 count for a clear edge in the round, 10-7 for a dominant no KD round, 10-6 for a knockdown, and so on.
I also don't think that a knockdown should automatically always be a two point round. How quickly the fallen fighter rises/how badly hurt he was by the punch should count though I'm not exactly sure to define that to make it 'rule-worthy'

Seamus wrote:This is a topic that I think should be discussed more often, because I believe there are certain problems in the way alot of judges score fights that don't reflect accurately on who's winning a bout. Let me present a hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. In round 1, fighter A barely catches fighter B with a shot to the chin as B is leaning away. B is slightly off balance, goes down, and of course it's ruled a knockdown. He's not hurt, and the rest of the round is very even. In round 2, B catches A with several big shots and rocks him good, A is steady on his feet though and is punching back. Round 3 goes exactly the same as round 2, with B totally dominating the action. Now here's the problem. If you were to look at the scorecards after three rounds, it's almost a guarantee that at least one judge has the bout at 28-28.

So what could be done to ensure that close bouts are scored more accurately ? I'll have some suggestions later.

I know I will get some flak for this, but I would probably score round one 10-8. Fighter B being off balance is his own fault. If he was knocked down legally by a punch, he should lose the round 10-8. Footwork and balance is part of boxing as well.
As for round 2 and 3, it's hard to say without seeing it. If depends how effective fighter A is punching back. If not effectively, I would score it 10-8 for fighter B.
I strongly agree that more rounds should be scored 10-8 that don't have knockdowns.

Another problem I see is that nothing else in the round seems to matter if a knockdown occurs. For example, lets say fighter A is defintely controlling the round and then gets knocked down right with 5 seconds left in the round. Should that be a 10-8 round for fighter B? The judges would almost surely score it 10-8.
Yet if B was controlling the entire round and then knocked fighter A down right at the end of the round, it would still be scored 10-8.
It's like the first 2minutes and 55 seconds of the round don't really matter at all if there is a kncokdown at the end.

Great topic, hope many more people respond.

Off-balance or not, a knockdown is scored a KD.

But I will refer to the Teddy Atlas rule-of-thumb, wherein if a boxer scores a flash KD in a round that he's clearly lost otherwise, it's a 9-9 round.

Other than that, even if a boxer is "busier" than the other, I will score for the more "telling" or "landing" shots.

I scored the DLH/ Trinidad fight this way. Even tough Oscar was clearly "busier", Tito's punches had more effect. Contrast that with the Vargas/Winky Wright fight. Although Vargas did land some great shots against Winky, I felt he didn't do enough against Winky's defense and offense. I scored that fight for Wright by 2 rounds.

And I do score for defense, even though it seems that's now passe' for a lot of judges. What fight was it - Willie Pep against whom, that Pep won a round not landing a punch, but neither did his opponent? Now, that's BOXING.

I dont think it is fair to score a round 10-8 to B if fighter A has not been knocked down, nomatter how much fighter A has been hurt, its a skill and a test of heart to bebale to stand up WITHOUT getting knocked down. If they introduced that rule then fighters would just lay down, to break the rythme instead of trying to weather the storm and not get knocked down to save a point.

Trent wrote:I dont think it is fair to score a round 10-8 to B if fighter A has not been knocked down, nomatter how much fighter A has been hurt, its a skill and a test of heart to bebale to stand up WITHOUT getting knocked down. If they introduced that rule then fighters would just lay down, to break the rythme instead of trying to weather the storm and not get knocked down to save a point.

That's why I did exort the "Teddy Atlas" rule of scoring.

I think the introduction of a system with half points would be an excellent idea. Until them however I have no problem with calling rounds even at 10-10. I think it was either Ferdie Pacheco or Gil Clancy who said if you score more than two rounds even in a fight, you shouldn't be a judge. I totally disagree because, if you call let's say 4 rounds even in a title bout because they were almost too close to call, just remember the champion or the guy who's considered more marketable or the hometown boy is probably getting all four of those rounds 10-9.

Someone else may have alluded to it, but I think there should be more rounds scored 10-8 WITHOUT a knockdown. There's no way a round of total dominance and a round where one fighter has a slight advantage should be judged the same. Also, even though this doesn't occur frequently, when the three knockdown rule is not in effect, three knockdowns should give you the round by a 10-6 margin. I remember discussing Paez v Grove I with a fight manager, and when he told me that he thought Grove deserved the decision (even though he barely survived the 15th round) I told him I agreed with two of the judges because I had Paez pulling it out with a 10-6 15th round. When I said that, the manager was incredulous. A guy involved full time in the fight game actually thought there was no justification for calling a round 10-6 even with three knockdowns !

tiredoldngrey wrote:Yes, I agree, if the defensive fighter is throwing nothing back.

There should be more use of the ten points in the system, that is very true. I remember when the scoring system in England still allowed for 1/2 points- a 10-91/2 round for example- and the commentators on the broadcast praised that idea to the heavens and what a shame the US system didn't allow for that. Huh? Why not have 10-9 be the margin in very close rounds, 10-8 count for a clear edge in the round, 10-7 for a dominant no KD round, 10-6 for a knockdown, and so on.
I also don't think that a knockdown should automatically always be a two point round. How quickly the fallen fighter rises/how badly hurt he was by the punch should count though I'm not exactly sure to define that to make it 'rule-worthy'

Excellent points. I've posted similar opinions in the past because I get frustrated with a scoring system that's called a "10 point must" system, but nobody ever uses more than 2 points (10-8), or in extreme cases 3 points (10-7) of the 10 points. If judges aren't going to use the full 10 points they might as well go back to scoring by rounds, because as you noted, sometimes flash, or even questionable KD's can screwup the scoring of an entire fight.

Lots of good points raised here.

I think something needs to eb awarded for a knockdown because it's dramatic and shows effect even a flash KD.

as has been discussed, the hard ones are when 1 guy is totally dominant landing clean shots and then gets knocked down.

BUMP

This is something that some people might disagree but here it goes. Let’s say fighter A is dominating the round clearly and he suffers a knockdown. I like to score the round 10 -10. Why? Because I don’t think a fighter should be rewarded automatically 10 -8 a round that he clearly was losing. I guess it depends on the particalars of the fight. For example, the Cotto vs Pac fight. Round three I score the round 10 -10 because imo Cotto was winning the round clearly and just suffered a flash knockdown. The knockdown made the round even and since is a 10 pts must system I score the round 10-10. Now I scoure round 4 10 – 9 in favor of Pac. Again Cotto was winning that round clearly imo but he was hurt bad at the end of the round. So I just score 10 -9 and not 10 – 8 in favor of Pac. I only like to score the round 10 -8 when there whoever is winning the round also knocks down the other fighter or if he clearly hurts the other guy in the round. He must have a clear total domination of the round in order to be scored 10-8 without the knockdown. Love to hear what you guys think of my scoring system.

Idisagree wrote:This is something that some people might disagree but here it goes. Let’s say fighter A is dominating the round clearly and he suffers a knockdown. I like to score the round 10 -10. Why? Because I don’t think a fighter should be rewarded automatically 10 -8 a round that he clearly was losing. I guess it depends on the particalars of the fight. For example, the Cotto vs Pac fight. Round three I score the round 10 -10 because imo Cotto was winning the round clearly and just suffered a flash knockdown. The knockdown made the round even and since is a 10 pts must system I score the round 10-10. Now I scoure round 4 10 – 9 in favor of Pac. Again Cotto was winning that round clearly imo but he was hurt bad at the end of the round. So I just score 10 -9 and not 10 – 8 in favor of Pac. I only like to score the round 10 -8 when there whoever is winning the round also knocks down the other fighter or if he clearly hurts the other guy in the round. He must have a clear total domination of the round in order to be scored 10-8 without the knockdown. Love to hear what you guys think of my scoring system.

Would you consider a real-world instance of the scenario you described in your first sentence round eight of Tyson-Douglas? Douglas was pasting him toward the end of the round very badly, then was dropped.

Idisagree wrote:This is something that some people might disagree but here it goes. Let’s say fighter A is dominating the round clearly and he suffers a knockdown. I like to score the round 10 -10. Why? Because I don’t think a fighter should be rewarded automatically 10 -8 a round that he clearly was losing. I guess it depends on the particalars of the fight. For example, the Cotto vs Pac fight. Round three I score the round 10 -10 because imo Cotto was winning the round clearly and just suffered a flash knockdown. The knockdown made the round even and since is a 10 pts must system I score the round 10-10. Now I scoure round 4 10 – 9 in favor of Pac. Again Cotto was winning that round clearly imo but he was hurt bad at the end of the round. So I just score 10 -9 and not 10 – 8 in favor of Pac. I only like to score the round 10 -8 when there whoever is winning the round also knocks down the other fighter or if he clearly hurts the other guy in the round. He must have a clear total domination of the round in order to be scored 10-8 without the knockdown. Love to hear what you guys think of my scoring system.

Spot on. That's exactly how it is supposed to be I thought. 1 point for winning the round, 1 point for a KD (or further demonstrated dominance of the round). Thus, if one boxer wins the round whilst the other pulls a KD out of his hat, that is a 10-10 round. Nowadays, inexplicably, a KD usually equals a 2 point round without due consideration given to who actually won the round.

edit: eg. If I were taking a pummelling on my feet (1 pt to him), but managed to score two 'flash' KDs on my opponent (2 pts to me), conceivably, that's a 10-9 round to me. If my KDs hurt my opponent and I started to dominate the actual round however, that of course would change everything.

keyboard warrior wrote:

Idisagree wrote:This is something that some people might disagree but here it goes. Let’s say fighter A is dominating the round clearly and he suffers a knockdown. I like to score the round 10 -10. Why? Because I don’t think a fighter should be rewarded automatically 10 -8 a round that he clearly was losing. I guess it depends on the particalars of the fight. For example, the Cotto vs Pac fight. Round three I score the round 10 -10 because imo Cotto was winning the round clearly and just suffered a flash knockdown. The knockdown made the round even and since is a 10 pts must system I score the round 10-10. Now I scoure round 4 10 – 9 in favor of Pac. Again Cotto was winning that round clearly imo but he was hurt bad at the end of the round. So I just score 10 -9 and not 10 – 8 in favor of Pac. I only like to score the round 10 -8 when there whoever is winning the round also knocks down the other fighter or if he clearly hurts the other guy in the round. He must have a clear total domination of the round in order to be scored 10-8 without the knockdown. Love to hear what you guys think of my scoring system.

Spot on. That's exactly how it is supposed to be I thought. 1 point for winning the round, 1 point for a KD (or further demonstrated dominance of the round). Thus, if one boxer wins the round whilst the other pulls a KD out of his hat, that is a 10-10 round. Nowadays, inexplicably, a KD usually equals a 2 point round without due consideration given to who actually one the round.

edit: eg. If I were taking a pummelling on my feet (1 pt to him), but managed to score two 'flash' KDs on my opponent (2 pts to me), conceivably, that's a 10-9 round to me. If my KDs hurt my opponent and I started to dominate the actual round however, that of course would change everything.

This is how I score the rounds. It makes sense to me.

whoever seems to be the most effective in the round or whoever does the most damage

Has anyone said "With a pen & paper" yet?

Apologies.

Datsue wrote:Has anyone said "With a pen & paper" yet?

Apologies.

Purists do it with a pencil.

I sat next to a respected(?) NY judge. She asked me who I thought won the round, I said boxer A because he landed more punches and I thought controlled the round. She said she scored it for B because he landed the more telling blow of the round (which he did). I thought that was interesting, so some judges go by being busy and some who threw the punch that did the most damage.

My solution has always been to get rid of judges, and fight on until a KO or TKO.

nickcat0 wrote:My solution has always been to get rid of judges, and fight on until a KO or TKO.

"Tragic news in the sport of Boxing today, as yet another fighter met their death at the hands of Winky Wright. The man now dubbed, "The Pensacola Destroyer" has watched his last six opponents collapse from dehydration, after fighting on for more than fifty rounds, unable to land anything significant, or receive any significant return fire from Wright, either. Wright, now undisputed champion, is having difficult lining up his next foe, & may, in fact, rule the division until his retirement."

wsbuf wrote:I sat next to a respected(?) NY judge. She asked me who I thought won the round, I said boxer A because he landed more punches and I thought controlled the round. She said she scored it for B because he landed the more telling blow of the round (which he did). I thought that was interesting, so some judges go by being busy and some who threw the punch that did the most damage.

That would explain the massive divergence in scorecards we sometimes see. Seriously, the individual organisations need to to serious judging clinincs for their officials and get everyone on the same page.

Would it be better if "Amateur" scoring was utilized? Points, points points?