Changes to the present scoring system

[AlFrancis]

After a discussion with Teeto about not scoring even rounds I was wondering if anyone has got a view on revising the scoring system.
If we were to do away with even rounds and find a winner not matter how close it is shouldn't we use the 10 points we've got to play with or call it 5, I now it's not a new idea.
If a fighter wins a round clearly, call it a 10-8 or 5-3. I f fighter A batters fighter B. why not a 5-2 or even a 5-1 though that would be in extreme circumstances.
What I don't agree with is the automatic 10-8 for a knockdown, no matter who's winning the round. I think a fighter can win a round despite being knocked over and this should be reflected in the scoring.

Any views?

[teeto]

I'm the same on the automatic 10-8 thing, that's shit. I reckon losing a point for a knockdown is right, but if a fighter loses the round but gets say a flash knockdown then i'd call it even personally. Also if a fighter gets battered but stays upright, i don't ever score it 10-8, if you show the heart to stay on your feet you deserve your 9 points. That's under the current system anyway, my view.

On your new system proposal Al, i reckon it sounds interesting, but it's very much subjective on how and when you would score the round by a big margin. There'd be a lot of controversy potentially. Make for good debate though when we're all comparing our cards. I've nearly done your fight now but i'll finish it after the match.

Sorry i've took forever mate, just a victim of circumstances, i'm busy as fuck, later mate,

[GPater11093]

I did like the old timers way of scoring when the 10 must came into play. They had no qualms scoring a one-sided round 10-8, and a close round 10-9.

Personally I score it 10-9 to a round winner, 10-8 if one fighter is truly dominant. And if there is a knockdown I score the round as I would any other then deduct the point so a fighter could win the round and be knocked down and get an even round.

Personally I would like a rounds system back.

[The Wanderer]

I would definitely be in favor of opening up the regulations a bit, scoring a close round 10-9, a big round 10-8, and letting judges apply their own discretion about knockdowns. (For example, if Fighter A is slightly up in the round and does a flash knockdown on Fighter B, it's okay to score it 10-9. If Fighter A is kicking Fighter B's ass but suddenly gets hit for a balance knockdown, they can still win the round or have to be scored a draw, etc).

The only problem I see with that is that it adds a lot more subjectiveness into things, and added room for bad/corrupt judges to justify their scores. We need a better class of judges before altering the scoring, in my opinion.

[AlFrancis]

I did like the old timers way of scoring when the 10 must came into play. They had no qualms scoring a one-sided round 10-8, and a close round 10-9.

Personally I score it 10-9 to a round winner, 10-8 if one fighter is truly dominant. And if there is a knockdown I score the round as I would any other then deduct the point so a fighter could win the round and be knocked down and get an even round.

Personally I would like a rounds system back.


I think really what we have now is the same as a round system because most rounds are scored 10-9 whether they're close or clear. The only exception being when there is a knockdown which I don't agree with or someone is in serious trouble.

[GPater11093]

I think really what we have now is the same as a round system because most rounds are scored 10-9 whether they're close or clear. The only exception being when there is a knockdown which I don't agree with or someone is in serious trouble.

But something like JMM vs Pacquiao I.

If that was a rounds system JMM would have won it, and he should have won that fight anyway IMO (but thats a different matter). I think a man who is better than his opponent in more rounds deserves to win, if it is a close fight, then it should be taken into account how domiannt the rounds were.

[Boilermaker]

I'm the same on the automatic 10-8 thing, that's shit. I reckon losing a point for a knockdown is right, but if a fighter loses the round but gets say a flash knockdown then i'd call it even personally. Also if a fighter gets battered but stays upright, i don't ever score it 10-8, if you show the heart to stay on your feet you deserve your 9 points. That's under the current system anyway, my view.

On your new system proposal Al, i reckon it sounds interesting, but it's very much subjective on how and when you would score the round by a big margin. There'd be a lot of controversy potentially. Make for good debate though when we're all comparing our cards. I've nearly done your fight now but i'll finish it after the match.

Sorry i've took forever mate, just a victim of circumstances, i'm busy as fuck, later mate,

But that is the rule, isnt it!

If a fighter is winning a round and gets Knocked down it is a 10-10 round. Actually i always thought it was a 9-9 but that sounds a bit strange in a 10 point must system. Though it can happen with a point deduction. And 10-8 rounds happen without knockouts even 10-7 with one knockdown, from time to time. I am sure that it was Leonard Hearns II or one of those type of fights where the 10-8 round was the difference and ended up causing a lot of controversy.

I find it surprising, with all the judging controversies, that so many are calling for judges to have more discretion!

I am not sure what changes if any i would like to make. If tweaking the system, probably i would like to see the value of a knockdown increased to 2 or maybe 3 points deduction. After all, this is the name of the game and is usually where most controversial fights come from, if one fighter gets more knock downs but loses the fights. Also, perhaps a grade of knockdown. Eg flash knockdown, a loss of one point, but a solid knockdown more. Maybe even grade it on the number of seconds on the canvas. I also wouldnt mind seeing judges scores released at the end of each round. I think it makes it more exciting and less chance of controversy. Also, i think it would help the commentators score properly and there would be less chance of a mistake because of their errors, which is what commonly causes controversy. Maybe the last round could or should be worth double points?

I am not sure whether there is a wholesale change to the system that would work. A variation of the amateur system with big punches and knockouts scoring extra points might work, but i dont really think so. Perhaps Judges could rank out of 10 on several criteria, but again, i dont think it would work.

[AlFrancis]

I would definitely be in favor of opening up the regulations a bit, scoring a close round 10-9, a big round 10-8, and letting judges apply their own discretion about knockdowns. (For example, if Fighter A is slightly up in the round and does a flash knockdown on Fighter B, it's okay to score it 10-9. If Fighter A is kicking Fighter B's ass but suddenly gets hit for a balance knockdown, they can still win the round or have to be scored a draw, etc).

The only problem I see with that is that it adds a lot more subjectiveness into things, and added room for bad/corrupt judges to justify their scores. We need a better class of judges before altering the scoring, in my opinion.


I know what your saying about better/straighter judges but that's a problem we already have and I think it's easier for them to get away with it under the current system where there is such a small margin. With a bit more play in the scoring it could show any shenanigans up. For example If you got a close round scored 5-4 by 2 judges to fighter A and the third judge has it 5-3 the other way he has to justify that afterwards. The same for a clear round scored for fighter A 5-3 by 2 judges and 5-4 the other way by the third. I think it would be harder for them to get away with it.
The judges should be called up anyway in controversial fights to explain their scorecards. Specially when there is a big disparity. Constant offenders should be fucked off.

[AlFrancis]

But that is the rule, isnt it!

If a fighter is winning a round and gets Knocked down it is a 10-10 round. Actually i always thought it was a 9-9 but that sounds a bit strange in a 10 point must system. Though it can happen with a point deduction. And 10-8 rounds happen without knockouts even 10-7 with one knockdown, from time to time. I am sure that it was Leonard Hearns II or one of those type of fights where the 10-8 round was the difference and ended up causing a lot of controversy.

I find it surprising, with all the judging controversies, that so many are calling for judges to have more discretion!

I am not sure what changes if any i would like to make. If tweaking the system, probably i would like to see the value of a knockdown increased to 2 or maybe 3 points deduction. After all, this is the name of the game and is usually where most controversial fights come from, if one fighter gets more knock downs but loses the fights. Also, perhaps a grade of knockdown. Eg flash knockdown, a loss of one point, but a solid knockdown more. Maybe even grade it on the number of seconds on the canvas. I also wouldnt mind seeing judges scores released at the end of each round. I think it makes it more exciting and less chance of controversy. Also, i think it would help the commentators score properly and there would be less chance of a mistake because of their errors, which is what commonly causes controversy. Maybe the last round could or should be worth double points?

I am not sure whether there is a wholesale change to the system that would work. A variation of the amateur system with big punches and knockouts scoring extra points might work, but i dont really think so. Perhaps Judges could rank out of 10 on several criteria, but again, i dont think it would work.

Is that the rule though? I think judges are encouraged to score 10-8 if there is a knockdown no matter who's won the rest of the round

[AlFrancis]

The point I'm making, forget the knockdowns for a minute is that is that there is a difference between shading a round and winning it clearly and it should be reflected in the scoring. I've scored fights before using the current system and when I've added my scorecard up at the end it doesn't always add up to what I've just witnessed. For example fighter A winning 6 rounds clearly getting a draw with fighter B who has shaded 6 rounds.

[Beeston Brawler]

Score more on clean, accurate, effective punching rather than on aggression.

Get that right, then talk more about other changes - because it's getting beyond a joke with this shit, especially in the UK.

Why bother learning to make your opponent miss and to counter him, when you can walk forward with your chin down and just windmill all night - and get the decision?

[teeto]

Is that the rule though. i think judges are encouraged to score 10-8 if there is a knockdown no matter who's won the rest of the round
You're right, that's what it is, and i don't like it, like most of us don't like it.

[sweetsci]

If we're going to change the way we score fights (and we should), I think we have to throw out the whole "must" idea. Instead, let's award the winner of a round anywhere between 1 and 5 points and the loser anywhere between 0 and 4, depending on their efforts.

Examples:
If it's a close round in an average fight, 3-2 round.
If the loser isn't putting any effort in at all, 3-0.
If the winner scores a knockdown over the loser in the previous example, 4-0.
If it's a close round and both guys are putting in great efforts, 5-4.
If one guy looks great and is outclassing someone who nonetheless is really trying, 4-2.
If it's a snoozer and one guy is narrowly winning, 2-1.
If it's a snoozer and both guys are really not trying, but one is trying a little bit more, 1-0.
If one fighter is putting in a superhuman performance and the other guy keeps getting knocked down but keeps getting up, a la Dempsey-Willard round 1 or Ali-Williams round 1, it might be scored 5-1 or 5-2, depending on what the scorer thought of the loser's effort.

Using a system like this you can look at the scores and judge the quality of the fight. If it's a 10-rounder and the loser scores 0, you can tell he (or she) didn't put in much effort.

If it's a 15-rounder (I can dream, can't I?) and the final score is 68-67, you'd know it was a damn good fight. The winner won 8 rounds by 5-4, the loser won 7 by 5-4. Just looking at the high number of 5's and 4's awarded, you'd know it was good.

Conversely, if a 15-rounder is scored 43-18, you'd know the fight was neither close nor very exciting.

Thoughts?

[AlFrancis]

If we're going to change the way we score fights (and we should), I think we have to throw out the whole "must" idea. Instead, let's award the winner of a round anywhere between 1 and 5 points and the loser anywhere between 0 and 4, depending on their efforts.

Examples:
If it's a close round in an average fight, 3-2 round.
If the loser isn't putting any effort in at all, 3-0.
If the winner scores a knockdown over the loser in the previous example, 4-0.
If it's a close round and both guys are putting in great efforts, 5-4.
If one guy looks great and is outclassing someone who nonetheless is really trying, 4-2.
If it's a snoozer and one guy is narrowly winning, 2-1.
If it's a snoozer and both guys are really not trying, but one is trying a little bit more, 1-0.
If one fighter is putting in a superhuman performance and the other guy keeps getting knocked down but keeps getting up, a la Dempsey-Willard round 1 or Ali-Williams round 1, it might be scored 5-1 or 5-2, depending on what the scorer thought of the loser's effort.

Using a system like this you can look at the scores and judge the quality of the fight. If it's a 10-rounder and the loser scores 0, you can tell he (or she) didn't put in much effort.

If it's a 15-rounder (I can dream, can't I?) and the final score is 68-67, you'd know it was a damn good fight. The winner won 8 rounds by 5-4, the loser won 7 by 5-4. Just looking at the high number of 5's and 4's awarded, you'd know it was good.

Conversely, if a 15-rounder is scored 43-18, you'd know the fight was neither close nor very exciting.

Thoughts?

I think it sounds good but I think it might be hard for the judges to implement. I think the problem could be uniformity. It might just be a little bit over complicated.

[GPater11093]

If we're going to change the way we score fights (and we should), I think we have to throw out the whole "must" idea. Instead, let's award the winner of a round anywhere between 1 and 5 points and the loser anywhere between 0 and 4, depending on their efforts.

Examples:
If it's a close round in an average fight, 3-2 round.
If the loser isn't putting any effort in at all, 3-0.
If the winner scores a knockdown over the loser in the previous example, 4-0.
If it's a close round and both guys are putting in great efforts, 5-4.
If one guy looks great and is outclassing someone who nonetheless is really trying, 4-2.
If it's a snoozer and one guy is narrowly winning, 2-1.
If it's a snoozer and both guys are really not trying, but one is trying a little bit more, 1-0.
If one fighter is putting in a superhuman performance and the other guy keeps getting knocked down but keeps getting up, a la Dempsey-Willard round 1 or Ali-Williams round 1, it might be scored 5-1 or 5-2, depending on what the scorer thought of the loser's effort.

Using a system like this you can look at the scores and judge the quality of the fight. If it's a 10-rounder and the loser scores 0, you can tell he (or she) didn't put in much effort.

If it's a 15-rounder (I can dream, can't I?) and the final score is 68-67, you'd know it was a damn good fight. The winner won 8 rounds by 5-4, the loser won 7 by 5-4. Just looking at the high number of 5's and 4's awarded, you'd know it was good.

Conversely, if a 15-rounder is scored 43-18, you'd know the fight was neither close nor very exciting.

Thoughts?

But it rewards bravery, and perhaps a lack of skills, over actual skills and ability.

[lefthook31]

You're right, that's what it is, and i don't like it, like most of us don't like it.
Not really all judges are different. If the fighter loses the round but scores a knockdown it should be scored 9-8, I just think in most cases the fighter scoring a knockdown is winning the round.
One point deduction for losing the round
Two points for scoring a knockdown and winning the round.

Those are the rules.
One sided rounds are in some cases scored 10-8 without a knockdown
If a fighter wins the round and knocks down a fighter more than once its a point for each knockdown
The existing system for the most part is good.

[PowerPuncher]

I would definitely be in favor of opening up the regulations a bit, scoring a close round 10-9, a big round 10-8, and letting judges apply their own discretion about knockdowns. (For example, if Fighter A is slightly up in the round and does a flash knockdown on Fighter B, it's okay to score it 10-9. If Fighter A is kicking Fighter B's ass but suddenly gets hit for a balance knockdown, they can still win the round or have to be scored a draw, etc).

The only problem I see with that is that it adds a lot more subjectiveness into things, and added room for bad/corrupt judges to justify their scores. We need a better class of judges before altering the scoring, in my opinion.

Great post, completely agree. A none corrupt governing body would be something to, didnt McCain try to get this through

[The Wanderer]

I know what your saying about better/straighter judges but that's a problem we already have and I think it's easier for them to get away with it under the current system where there is such a small margin. With a bit more play in the scoring it could show any shenanigans up. For example If you got a close round scored 5-4 by 2 judges to fighter A and the third judge has it 5-3 the other way he has to justify that afterwards. The same for a clear round scored for fighter A 5-3 by 2 judges and 5-4 the other way by the third. I think it would be harder for them to get away with it.
The judges should be called up anyway in controversial fights to explain their scorecards. Specially when there is a big disparity. Constant offenders should be fucked off.

And I get what you're saying and agree with most of what you've said, but I think in a perfect world the first thing to do would be to establish a pool of competent, professional, (which means that the judges are not friends of someone in the sanctioning bodies who got the job as a favor, and ask people in the crowd how the round should have been scored because they weren't watching) and reliable judges.

Take the best of the existing judges, do professional hiring of others complete with actual training and looking over how they score fights, and definitely with the inquiries and reviews you mentioned for crazy scorecards.

Look, regardless of whether a judge can only score a round 10-9 without a KD or can score a round 10-7 or whatever at will, a corrupt or incompetent judge is going to be corrupt or incompetent. Which is why I say do at least some overhaul of the judging pools, (or at least institute the reviews and training first) before doing the scoring system.

Having at least some of the reforms about how judges are picked, trained, and reviewed in place first will do much more to help boxing than changing the scoring system without making those reforms. Obviously, in a perfect world both things could be accomplished at once, but if we had to pick an order I'd say at least with the reforms for judges, then when you're confident in the competency of at least some of the judges, you can tinker with the scoring system and give greater discretion to the judges.

[AlFrancis]

And I get what you're saying and agree with most of what you've said, but I think in a perfect world the first thing to do would be to establish a pool of competent, professional, (which means that the judges are not friends of someone in the sanctioning bodies who got the job as a favor, and ask people in the crowd how the round should have been scored because they weren't watching) and reliable judges.

Take the best of the existing judges, do professional hiring of others complete with actual training and looking over how they score fights, and definitely with the inquiries and reviews you mentioned for crazy scorecards.

Look, regardless of whether a judge can only score a round 10-9 without a KD or can score a round 10-7 or whatever at will, a corrupt or incompetent judge is going to be corrupt or incompetent. Which is why I say do at least some overhaul of the judging pools, (or at least institute the reviews and training first) before doing the scoring system.

Having at least some of the reforms about how judges are picked, trained, and reviewed in place first will do much more to help boxing than changing the scoring system without making those reforms. Obviously, in a perfect world both things could be accomplished at once, but if we had to pick an order I'd say at least with the reforms for judges, then when you're confident in the competency of at least some of the judges, you can tinker with the scoring system and give greater discretion to the judges.


I fully agree with you. it is a massive problem and it needs to be dealt with. Some of these judges think they're untouchable, the arrogance of them. It's always been like that. The most important people are the fighters and these bad judgements can cost them so much.

[Unforgiven]

I never understood the argument for NOT scoring rounds "even" if they are even. I just dont get that. If a round is even, score it even. If a fight is even, hopefully the scores will come up with a draw.
I actually prefer to see a fight ruled a draw when it's arguable so close it could go either way. I dont want to see any fighter get a "loss" on his record on a razor-close split decision, that's like getting beat in a system that's basically a lottery.

But I'm less concerned with "bad" decisions than I used to be. It will never be perfect, and things can look different from different angles, and it will always be somewhat subjective.
Maybe we should just have the fighters fight to the finish.

[PowerPuncher]

I fully agree with you. it is a massive problem and it needs to be dealt with. Some of these judges think they're untouchable, the arrogance of them. It's always been like that. The most important people are the fighters and these bad judgements can cost them so much.

Its more a case of judges wanting to get further paydays from a promoter so scoring the fight for the promoters fighter, rarely do you see a bad score go against the hometown fighter

[AlFrancis]

I never understood the argument for NOT scoring rounds "even" if they are even. I just dont get that. If a round is even, score it even. If a fight is even, hopefully the scores will come up with a draw.
I actually prefer to see a fight ruled a draw when it's arguable so close it could go either way. I dont want to see any fighter get a "loss" on his record on a razor-close split decision, that's like getting beat in a system that's basically a lottery.

But I'm less concerned with "bad" decisions than I used to be. It will never be perfect, and things can look different from different angles, and it will always be somewhat subjective.
Maybe we should just have the fighters fight to the finish.


Yes, the idea for the thread came from a conversation I had about not scoring even rounds. i did score some even rounds on the "what fights did you...." thread and someone commented on it. I don't think you should do away with them, if you can't split them you can't split them, fair enough. By the way, I have no problem with drawn fights.

[GPater11093]

I always think a fighter gets at least some edge in a certain round.

[frankenfrank]

i did not know that it is only one point for each knockdown , but even so , pac should have gotten a 10-6 round against marquez didn't he ? and what did he get ? 10-7 .
i think a knockdown should indeed receive 1 point at least , but bernard hopkins pushes and water in roy-jones' corner do not count as knockdowns. flash knockdowns should be credited as well. in reality/street fight / MMA a knockdown will almost every time lead to a brutal stoppage (if there is someone whom can stop the fight at all).
10-9 for a close round is bad. this is one of the biggest opportunities for a corrupt judge to score as he wants.
close rounds should be 10-10 if we use the 10 point must system.
clean effective punching should be credited , but so should aggression (moving forward).
so the present scoring system is not that bad after all. neither are the judges , most of the time. for me , almost every time , if a fighter scored the single knockdown of the fight , he should be the winner.
giving equal score for close rounds is a good way to achieve it.
byrd did not beat tua and neither did ibeabuchi , these two fights should have been scored as draws , maybe even a tua win in the byrd fight , as he was the aggressor . the lewis fight should have also been scored closer than it did.
pacquiao should have been declared as the winner in the first marquez fight , not to get a draw. and people claim marquez has got robbed.
reggie johnson should have at least got a draw against toney.
tiberi also , i guess even a close win.