BoxRec

10 point must system?...just by rounds?...etc. i personally think the 10 pt must system is crap. there has been too many fights where the scores were added up wrong and had to be changed after the decision was announced. why not give the fighter a point per round and a point for each knockdown? that way you're adding by ones and not by 10s and 9s. i'm also a fan of the majority scoring system where the three judges produce just one scorecard. it tends to throw the corrupt/incompetent judge's scorecard out, sometimes.

i would also like to see title fights go to 10 rounds. this might cause for more action packed bouts and would hopefully be a good thing for the health of the fighters. 10 rounds was good enough for dempsey and tunney. not sure how fans would feel about it.

i'm interested to see what all of you think on this.

What sort of variation are you offering in your scoring system? I mean, currently, we can have 10-6 rounds if a fighter is floored three times in a single round (one judges failure to comply with this requirement cost Pacquiao a victory against Marquez in 2004), so how would you score round involving two or more knockdowns on your simplified scoring system? Would minus points be in effect? I'm on the fence with the Majority Scoring System, I haven't yet decided.

Fifteen rounds is the only way to go for a championship bout, IMO. They never should have removed it. Twelve for a non-title bout. Ten does not appeal to me at all, & while I take your point about more action over a shorter distance, it really only encourages fighters to be lazier & get away with less fitness training. Fifteen rounds of incredible action was no problem for Heavyweights in Ali & Frazier (1971), nor was it for many lower-weight fighters of the past, so we shouldn't permit excuses for fighters today. Raising the bar to fifteen rounds would provide fighters with an incentive to get into the type of condition we see less & less of now.

One thing I would like to see returned to the mainstream is the three-knockdown rule. That should be the end of a fight, IMO.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:What sort of variation are you offering in your scoring system? I mean, currently, we can have 10-6 rounds if a fighter is floored three times in a single round (one judges failure to comply with this requirement cost Pacquiao a victory against Marquez in 2004), so how would you score round involving two or more knockdowns on your simplified scoring system? Would minus points be in effect? I'm on the fence with the Majority Scoring System, I haven't yet decided.

Fifteen rounds is the only way to go for a championship bout, IMO. They never should have removed it. Twelve for a non-title bout. Ten does not appeal to me at all, & while I take your point about more action over a shorter distance, it really only encourages fighters to be lazier & get away with less fitness training. Fifteen rounds of incredible action was no problem for Heavyweights in Ali & Frazier (1971), nor was it for many lower-weight fighters of the past, so we shouldn't permit excuses for fighters today. Raising the bar to fifteen rounds would provide fighters with an incentive to get into the type of condition we see less & less of now.

One thing I would like to see returned to the mainstream is the three-knockdown rule. That should be the end of a fight, IMO.

good points. what i mean is if a fighter scores three knockdowns in a round like pacquiao, pacquiao would receive three points for those knockdowns plus another point for winning the round. that would be the equal of a 10-6 round. that way it takes the scoring of the knockdowns out of the judges' hands. they don't have to decide on 10-8 and 10-7 rounds, just who won the round. there's no perfect way to score i guess.

minus scoring would not be in effect. if a fighter gets a point deducted for a foul, the other fighter would get a point so you wouldn't go into negative scoring.

I like the ten point must.

I would like to see 15 rounds for unification title fights or undisputed bouts.

12 rounds for eliminators or fragment titles.

I prefer the 10 point must system to, scoring by rounds nver seemed to adequetely reward a fighter for knockdowns, anless the rounds total was equal. Here in the UK at one time we had the 10 point system and round were seperated by 1/4 point or 1/2 point. It worked but I can't see an alphabet official being able to add all that up somehow.

i dont like the idea of 10 round championship fights. it be easier for jabbin joggers to score boring ass decision wins and then boxing would not be too appealing to younger fans. IMO the only way that 10 rounds would be exciting is with two fighters with great hearts got in the ring.

How about a 5-point scoring system as some jurisdictions used at one time? Why ten? You'll never see a 10-3 round anyway.

As for distance. Fifteen rounds for world titles fights, 12 rounds for regional titles and fights between two top-ranked contenders, ten rounds for a top-ten fighter and fighter ranked below top-ten.

Have they formed a National Boxing Council yet? :)
Who's going to implement this stuff?

Cap wrote:How about a 5-point scoring system as some jurisdictions used at one time? Why ten? You'll never see a 10-3 round anyway.

As for distance. Fifteen rounds for world titles fights, 12 rounds for regional titles and fights between two top-ranked contenders, ten rounds for a top-ten fighter and fighter ranked below top-ten.

Have they formed a National Boxing Council yet? :)
Who's going to implement this stuff?

mccain was the one trying to get it to pass before. if he becomes president i would think it would have a better shot of being formed. this is way overdue.

How does a National body in the US influence world titles fights ?

Especially seeing as there are alot of non USA flags next to the many
champions...

Just what boxing needs . . . boxing governed by some bureaucrat in the Department of Health and Human Services.

15 rounds is the distance... 10 point must seems as good as any...

raylawpc wrote:Just what boxing needs . . . boxing governed by some bureaucrat in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Still better than the circus clowns running it now. Things will never improve because it isn't in their vested interests to improve. The promoters and media guys like things just the way they are. Obviously, there are a few yokels on this forum who agree with them.....

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Cap wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Just what boxing needs . . . boxing governed by some bureaucrat in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Still better than the circus clowns running it now. Things will never improve because it isn't in their vested interests to improve. The promoters and media guys like things just the way they are. Obviously, there are a few yokels on this forum who agree with them.....

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Cap, maybe you are right. But in my job I deal with a government bureaucracy day-in and day-out - the Internal Revenue Service - and other agencies of the federal government, such as the SEC, on an occasional basis. Based on my experience, I can't say dealing with the federal government would be better for boxing than putting up with the likes of Don King or Bob Arum.

is it really necessary to make your point by calling me a "yokel" just because we happen to disagree?

15 rounds, 10ptsmust isn't too bad, the championship rounds coming back is what's more important.

raylawpc wrote:

Cap wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Just what boxing needs . . . boxing governed by some bureaucrat in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Still better than the circus clowns running it now. Things will never improve because it isn't in their vested interests to improve. The promoters and media guys like things just the way they are. Obviously, there are a few yokels on this forum who agree with them.....

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Cap, maybe you are right. But in my job I deal with a government bureaucracy day-in and day-out - the Internal Revenue Service - and other agencies of the federal government, such as the SEC, on an occasional basis. Based on my experience, I can't say dealing with the federal government would be better for boxing than putting up with the likes of Don King or Bob Arum.

is it really necessary to make your point by calling me a "yokel" just because we happen to disagree?

I agree with Tom (Ray) an I'm not a "yokel"...

raylawpc wrote:

Cap wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Just what boxing needs . . . boxing governed by some bureaucrat in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Still better than the circus clowns running it now. Things will never improve because it isn't in their vested interests to improve. The promoters and media guys like things just the way they are. Obviously, there are a few yokels on this forum who agree with them.....

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Cap, maybe you are right. But in my job I deal with a government bureaucracy day-in and day-out - the Internal Revenue Service - and other agencies of the federal government, such as the SEC, on an occasional basis. Based on my experience, I can't say dealing with the federal government would be better for boxing than putting up with the likes of Don King or Bob Arum.

is it really necessary to make your point by calling me a "yokel" just because we happen to disagree?

good point. let me think twice before i hope for a national commission. the main hope for me is that suspensions to fighters would be recognized throughout the country. maybe some sort of pension for fighters as well but i know that i'm dreaming when i talk about those things.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Without a real strong hand behind it, nothing will ever change. Not now. Not ever. All the wishful thinking in the world will have absolute zero impact on boxing. The promoters run the sport right now with help from the media. No one in that gang has any long-term interest in the sport.

So, quite simply, without a powerful nudge from some government agency, all this talk of improving the sport is pie-in-the-sky.

Cap

I think Cap made a good point about the media. The media has a much bigger role in this than most people realize, HBO in particular. If HBO wanted to just recoginize 1 alphabet Soup organization for example, they could. This would make a huge difference. The other alphabet soups influence would decline dramatically.

At one time HBO did not recognize the WBO. They would refer to a WBO champion as a title holder and wouldn't even mention the "WBO" on air. The WBO only became one of the big four when HBO started recognizing WBO champions as real champions.

Unfortunatley, HBO doesn't think that it's in their best interest to do so. Apparently they want to advertise almost all of their fights as "title fights". Also, with 4 champions at one weight and very few unification fights, the top fighters can easily avoid each other. Consequently, more fighters are undefeated. A fighter being undefeated is a big selling point when advertising a fight.

the correct number of rounds is fifteen.

hartford conneticut used to hjave the only score that really makes sense - i point for the winner, 0 for the loser; extra points for knockdowns. as our friend here stated, it's really the same as ten must in terms of the math.

..and it reminds me of afight between...i think kid gavilan..i do know it was a champion in an over-the-weight non title affair against somebody....and the champion won every round...so the loser's point at the end was zero. to show that stupidity in the guys on tv covering the match, one of them said."Zero! how can the give the guy just zero? heck, just getting in thre ring against a world champion should earN him at least SOMETHING!"

Cap wrote:Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Without a real strong hand behind it, nothing will ever change. Not now. Not ever. All the wishful thinking in the world will have absolute zero impact on boxing. The promoters run the sport right now with help from the media. No one in that gang has any long-term interest in the sport.

So, quite simply, without a powerful nudge from some government agency, all this talk of improving the sport is pie-in-the-sky.

Cap

You didn't hurt my feelings. I just don't like name calling.

I would like to see fights this way:

Super fights like Mayweather vs Cotto or Mayweather vs Delahoya should be 15 rounds.
Unification bouts should be 15 rounds also.
Title fights that do not have any meaning in particular: 12 rounds.
Title elimination fights and regional championship fights should be also 12 rounds
Ten-point scoring system
No three-knockdown rules

One champion or two champions per division: PRICELESS

I would like broccoli to taste like chocolate and still be as good for you.

me tooo