Well should not have controversial decisions have encouraged more rematches? But we don’t see that. Berbut and Tavoris Cloud, the alphabet champs have shown there reluctance to give Campillo a rematch, when many felt Campillo won both fights that he lost. Yes in the past, sometimes rematches were the order of the day, but with the fragmentation we have in boxing today, I don’t think draws would have much of a effect on the sport. Example about draws, Johnny Nelson drew with Carlos De Leon back in the early 90′s for the Cruiser weight championship, but no rematch. Bernard Taylor had a draw in the 90′s with the then WBA champ from Panama, no rematch. Both fights were not exciting fights, but a draw does not always mean a rematch.Posted August 24, 2012 7:29 pm
E in Denver
I meant “..the winner gets 1 point THE LOSER GETS 0..”Posted August 24, 2012 6:15 pm
E in Denver
More math isn’t the resolution. If that is the case don’t do a 10 point system. The winner of a round gets one point. Instead of deducting a point for a foul or a KD just give the point(s) to the opponent who was fouled or made the KD. The problem is corruption mixed w/ incompetence. Judges who turn in a blatantly or consistiently bad decision should be suspended. Maybe even check their financial records. If you can’t clean out the and start a new Texas commission just ban them cowboys from professional boxing events.Posted August 24, 2012 6:12 pm
Make the scoring system as easy as possible… It takes 5 minutes for some of these judges to add up two columns of numbers using a calculator. Even if a boxer didn’t win a round it takes them a long time to add up the 9′s. I’ve actually heard conversations like this, “What’s 12 X 9? 84 right?” … “Ahh no, you’re way off. It’s 108.” … “108? That can’t be right.” … “Oh yeah, you’re right. It’s 108. How the hell did I get 84? I’m having a bad day ha ha ha.” … “And 10 X 12 is 120, so let me just check once more time to be absolutely sure.” …. So to avoid all that use a 4-point system with no points to the loser of a round. Getting into factions and decimal points will just add to the brain farts. Even with the simplest system It will take some of these idiots 2 minutes to add up their scorecard. And even though they’re not supposed to keep a running tablulation after each round to avoid being influenced, I see them doing that anyway and they still can’t come up with the score. Three people have to check their card.Posted August 24, 2012 2:59 pm
Agreed that is is just more BS on top of to much BS.
Will any of this happen?
This “idea” is truly moronic. But that’s what you’d expect from the (wba) World’s Biggest Asses.Posted August 24, 2012 12:33 pm
I would prefer a four (4-point) system. One point to the winner if the round is close… Two points to the winner if the round is decisive… 3 points to the winner if a knockdown is scored… 4 points to the winner if 2 or more knockdowns are scored… The loser of any round should get zero (0) points. Why should he get any? Get some separation between a good boxer and an inept one. The idea of somebody getting a draw, or losing a majority decision in a fight where he was completely dominated is stupid, but the the “10-point must” system makes that stupidity happen frequently …. Why have a 10 point system if you don’t use the points? It’s ridiculous to score a round 10-9 when a guy is out scored 23 to 4 in clean punches landed.Posted August 24, 2012 11:46 am
Right on! The issue is the foolish reluctance to score a round 10-10. Judges have shown an alarming decrease in ability to score a round correctly. In addition, based on the increasing parity in nearly all sports (boxing included), seeing more draws would not end the sport – it is simply a reflection of the increasing parity – read: the truth! In fact, more draws would likely encourage more rematches. Since close bouts have a tendency to be more fan-friendly, more draws and more rematches would not hurt the sport. We would return to the roots of the sport — when good fighters with close matches fought each other often.Posted August 24, 2012 10:31 am
This leads to more complications and messes imho. Now we will have mathematical errors to deal with. The Bradley fight was wrong because the Judges got it wrong. There were close rounds, and TB did win a few, but most were Pac’s rounds.Posted August 24, 2012 7:41 am
That wouldn’t be professional boxing then! In fact, Amateur boxing is plagued by terrible decisions, that is why the instant appeal and re-score system was used at the Olympics.
Trial and errror. They’ll be less tyesPosted August 24, 2012 12:41 am
This idea is ridiculous. However, also some here writing suggest that the judges should score more rounds even. That used to be done, but on the ten point must, or even 5 point must, judges used to be very lazy and not want to make decisions. Case in point the first Leonard-Duran fight. One judge had given Duran 3 rounds, Leonard two, and had ten rounds even. I have also seen scores like 6-3-3 in world title fights when they went 15 rounds. I would prefer to have three alternate judges at world title fights, who could change the outcome of the original three judges. This would be done this way. A fight is a majority decision, the three if they unanimously agree the other fighter won would reverse that decision. A split could be reversed by a majority or unanimous decision by the alternate judges. In cases of draws, I would like them to add the score cards of all the judges, and who ever has the higher scores wins. Example one judge had it by four, the other judge had it by two for the other guy, and one even, the fighter who won the contest by two points could have it overturned for the other man if the alternate judges have it a split decision. I could go on in the draw situation, but will just leave it at that for now. What I would propose, even though it might cost more for a promotion, I feel would be the best solution.Posted August 24, 2012 12:09 am
It’s an interesting concept, but it changes the way the sport works.
It basically moves a bit more towards “total fight” judging rather than “per round” judging (i.e. in the new system, winning more rounds doesn’t necessarily mean you win the fight).Posted August 23, 2012 11:52 pm
Terrible idea. If a round is close, score it 9-9, if there is a definitive winner 10-9, end of storyPosted August 23, 2012 9:33 pm
i would have to agree with It’s me ernie as well as Tyler on this one.Posted August 23, 2012 7:32 pm
Boxing can’t get a break can it,don’t fix something that ain’t broke.The commissions & judges are the problem here.Posted August 23, 2012 6:56 pm
scroring half points is going to make the adding up of the score card more difficult. If a round is close and you can’t decide who won it just score it even. Making a half point is going to make a different if someone wins by a half a point and everybody disagrees on who actually won that round. Terrible idea. The 10 point system is just fine. We just need better judges not these lame judges who turn in terrible scored fightsPosted August 23, 2012 5:54 pm
But that’s exactly the problem. Close rounds are scored 10-9 and unless there’s a knockdown a completely dominated round gives the same 10-9 scoring. You can see that under that thinking you can have a fight called a Draw and one guy clearly lost.Posted August 23, 2012 2:23 pm
I go along with that though I don’t agree with the automatic knockdown scoring for and extra point. There are heavy knockdowns, cuffing knockdowns and plain simply slips that a referee can call a knockdown. Fighter A can win a round comfortably only to be knocked down and suddenly a 1 or 2 point margin for is a 3 point loss, in effect 4 or 5 point sway.
So would Floyd have lost in this scoring to Castillo ? What about Bradley I’m sure every round Pacquiao won was 10 to 9 but any of the 2 or 3 rounds Bradley won would have been 10 to 9.5Posted August 23, 2012 1:59 pm
A bad idea. Whatever happened to the concept of the judge getting off the fence, taking a stand and making a decision? This half-point crap is wishy washy nonsense. No matter how close the round, the judges should be forced to declare a winner of each round. Remember the verse from Ecclesiastes 6:11: The more words, the less meaning, and how does that profit anyone?Posted August 23, 2012 12:45 pm
Da UnKnown Comic
People already can’t add 7s, 8s, 9s, and 10s. This half point thing is just an attempt to try to hard. Make a 13th round. Add a half point. There will still be a way to be corrupt. Remember, it’s not the commision that pays the judges- it’s the promoter. Anyone find that to be juts the slightest conflict of interest?Posted August 23, 2012 12:23 pm
How about good, honest scoring without promoter and financial pressure?Posted August 23, 2012 11:57 am
How would this new scoring system have avoided the Pacquiao-Bradley fiasco? This gives the appearance of doing something when the real problem is the corruption & sleaziness of boxing, totally lacking in regulation. Everybody has a belt. Everybody is a star. And choose who you want to fight. And the fans keep forking over the cash.Posted August 23, 2012 11:46 am
No! No! No! We had the 1/2 and 1/4 point rounds for long enough in the UK… the referee used to both officiate and adjudicate the bouts and there were times where the ref couldn’t add up…. no, no, no! I would prefer we keep the 10 point must system and the judges score the round as they see it, but at the end of the bout they give in their chit with who they think won the fight…. If they are handing in their ballots at the end of each round as they should be it might be the best way as then we will have their round by round score and then who they think overall won the bout… therefore, if we have a majority draw or a draw we can see how many of the judges voted overall for boxer A and boxer B and could come to a decision there or failing that we go to the countback of an IMPROVED compubox type computer scorer where only EFFECTIVE punches are counted. ie punches with SNAP and authority including jabs are counted to determine winners of the round….. Failing that we need to overhaul this inept, incompetent and in some cases downright corrupt officials we have officiating these title bouts from 8 rounds and up and bring in a new breed who are willing and able to prove themselves at the top table!
Meant to include split and disputed hometown decisions, such as we saw in the Olympics also!Posted August 23, 2012 11:09 am
Horrible idea, corruption will increase exponentially! Can you imagine how many more fights will become controversial? Wow, one more drop in the ocean of nonsense connected with the alphabet titles.Posted August 23, 2012 11:09 am
Terrible idea. It invites corruption. If a fighter who is supposed to win clearly loses a round, he loses it 9.5-10. If a fighter that is supposed to win barely wins a round or the round is even, he wins it 10-9. Come on, don’t give the corrupt officials MORE room for subjective decisions.Posted August 23, 2012 10:48 am
It’s Me, Ernie…
Makes an easier path for corruption.Posted August 23, 2012 9:33 am
Will be a lot of resistance, when you want to change something there always is. I find myself resisting a little too. As a round ends, I ask myself who won that one, and that can be hard to answer. Now, with this half point system, I can see matches being won by a half point. That’s not going to fly with most fans.Posted August 23, 2012 9:22 am
Nice in principle…I’d prefer to see it using full points rather than fractions though; a very close round 10:9, a clearly won round 10:8, a knockdown round 10:7. No need for fractions.Posted August 23, 2012 8:51 am
Yeah because the 100 plus year old scoring system is the reason for all the recent bad decisions. What a bunch of tools the WBA employs. Adding a half point will make zero difference. That’s like adding 11? Pointless. Much like the WBA itself.Posted August 23, 2012 8:38 am
This is a stupid idea for so many reasons. This really won’t solve anything and instead could make things worse – say you had a fight with 3 even rounds scored 10-10 and the fight ended a draw, this would now mean a fighter could win the fight by 1.5points.
A lot of judges seem incapable of adding 10-9, how the hell will they cope with 0.5 scoring added in.
It’s also hard enough to keep up with different State and Commission rules as it is let alone a new renegade scoring system for one organisation.
Idiots.Posted August 23, 2012 8:37 am
Sounds good on the surface, but underneath it’ll make no real difference. They need to change way judges score close rounds with the current scoring system. Close rounds should simply be scored as a draw round. If an entire fight was only one round and that round was close, as many rounds we’ve seen, which man can you justifiably say won the fight? Neither, in my opinion. If fighter were only given rounds they won definitively and close rounds were all scored a draw, there would be way less controversy with the current judging system. Making 9.5 rounds is like making an 11 point must system.Posted August 23, 2012 7:50 am