Scoring close rounds: favour the champ?

[Boxiana]

I love a good scoring thread, so here goes:

Reflecting on my own scoring of Thurman vs Pac and other championship fights, I can see I’ve a tendency to give close rounds to the champion.

Whilst the rules of boxing are clear - and I agree that it should be possible to identify a winner of a round by following them - in practice it can be very difficult, and giving the champ these rounds seems a better alternative to a 10-10 or going with more of a gut feel (who’s style do you prefer, who finished strong, who landed the flashier shots etc).

Is this a valid way of scoring close rounds, and do you think judges already do this in practice?

 

[Seano]

I just pick whichever guy did the stuff that caught my eye. I never believed in the "you REALLY have to beat the champ decisively" ideal. BS. If you win even by the slightest possible margin, then you win. Period.

 

[Boxiana]

I just pick whichever guy did the stuff that caught my eye.

Maybe I’m reading this more flippantly than it was intended, but I would have expected something a little more scientific / in line with the rules from you (of all people!)

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Maybe I’m reading this more flippantly than it was intended, but I would have expected something a little more scientific / in line with the rules from you (of all people!)

What catches your eye is the more effective work. Rounds should be scored impartially despite who the champ is. If it's that close score it 10-10. Lopsided rounds should be 10-8. I think scoring that way would make controversial decisions less common.

 

[Seano]

Maybe I’m reading this more flippantly than it was intended, but I would have expected something a little more scientific / in line with the rules from you (of all people!)

Seems pretty obvious really.
I personally think I've watched and studied boxing long enough to say that I have a good grasp of the rules. If one guy didn't separate themselves clearly with punches landed then I look to see which guy was working when the other wasn't. Which guy was controlling the pace, who was cutting off the ring, who was covering up more etc etc etc

I guess the question is, why would you favor the champ and not the guy who did more?

 

[Absolut]

Have to do extra to beat the champ is BS. Same criteria in a mega fight as the opening fight on a lame card

 

[aries]

No I score exactly based on what I see using all of the standard criteria i.e. significant punches landed, ring control, effective aggression e.t.c. It doesn't matter fuck all to me who is the champion. I try to be as impartial as I can be even if I have a dog in the fight. If my man loses he loses. What I can't stand is crooked judging or reffing. Unfortunately, there is a lot in this sport.

 

[Boxiana]

Seems pretty obvious really.
I personally think I've watched and studied boxing long enough to say that I have a good grasp of the rules. If one guy didn't separate themselves clearly with punches landed then I look to see which guy was working when the other wasn't. Which guy was controlling the pace, who was cutting off the ring, who was covering up more etc etc etc

I guess the question is, why would you favor the champ and not the guy who did more?

No I score exactly based on what I see using all of the standard criteria i.e. significant punches landed, ring control, effective aggression e.t.c. It doesn't matter fuck all to me who is the champion. I try to be as impartial as I can be even if I have a dog in the fight. If my man loses he loses. What I can't stand is crooked judging or reffing. Unfortunately, there is a lot in this sport.

Agree that rounds should be scored based on the rules.

My self reflection / question was that when it is difficult / beyond ones judging abilities to score a close round, is favouring the champ a valid fall back position?

 

[revoltub]

Give it to the guy who bought you dinner before the fight

 

[Boxiana]

Thread’s going great so far! Hahaha.

 

[Hagler]

As people said above it is bullshit in theory, but I think some judges may do it in practice : more often than not fights happen on the champ’s turf and the crowd may have an influence in close rounds.

 

[spiderRico]

this is only a rule to explain robberies and then round by round scorers on the show would try to protect their product by having the house fighter "win"

 

[aries]

Agree that rounds should be scored based on the rules.

My self reflection / question was that when it is difficult / beyond ones judging abilities to score a close round, is favouring the champ a valid fall back position?

Personally I think 10/10 rounds should be given if neither fighter clearly wins the round.

 

[Seano]

My self reflection / question was that when it is difficult / beyond ones judging abilities to score a close round, is favouring the champ a valid fall back position?

Sounds like bias to me.

 

[Seano]

Personally I think 10/10 rounds should be given if neither fighter clearly wins the round.

I disagree. Like I said in the other thread a while back, a judge judges. He's paid to make a decision and with 4 criteria, they should be able to do that.

 

[deucesarewild]

I start with cleaner punching. This means a body blow that is muffled by a defender's arm doesn't get more than a hard jab. A jab can be nothing or a jab can knock a guy down, so you have to look at the quality of the punch based on how clean it lands. If it is a hard punch that moves the guy or noticably phases him that ends up being influential.

All the other stuff is secondary to punching but contributes if the punching is even or hard to award an edge.

 

[george14]

I disagree. Like I said in the other thread a while back, a judge judges. He's paid to make a decision and with 4 criteria, they should be able to do that.

A judge can judge a round to be 10-10. Just like they do in the UK often.

There are plenty of rounds were you are legitimately giving a guy a round because he landed 1 extra jab. It's all opinion anyway, but I also think 10-8 rounds should be given more often as well. A guy getting knocked down is automatically 10-8 (unless there is a Herculean comeback) so why isn't a round where the guy throws and lands 3x as many punches not a 10-8?

 

[Seano]

A judge can judge a round to be 10-10. Just like they do in the UK often.

There are plenty of rounds were you are legitimately giving a guy a round because he landed 1 extra jab. It's all opinion anyway, but I also think 10-8 rounds should be given more often as well. A guy getting knocked down is automatically 10-8 (unless there is a Herculean comeback) so why isn't a round where the guy throws and lands 3x as many punches not a 10-8?

Judges are discouraged from scoring 10-10.

More 10-10 rounds would lead to way more controversial decisions than we have now. Not sure why suddenly people are in support of them. The first time a popular fighter loses because of a 10-10, we'll have to tear that down too.

 

[george14]

Judges are discouraged from scoring 10-10.

More 10-10 rounds would lead to way more controversial decisions than we have now. Not sure why suddenly people are in support of them. The first time a popular fighter loses because of a 10-10, we'll have to tear that down too.

That is complete speculation. The UK often does it and they have fewer BS decision than we do in the US.

Then again, that doesn't matter. Every decision is correct by your standards since you agree with them. Nevermind the blatant corruption the sport has.

 

[Seano]

That is complete speculation. The UK often does it and they have fewer BS decision than we do in the US.

Then again, that doesn't matter. Every decision is correct by your standards since you agree with them. Nevermind the blatant corruption the sport has.

Its not speculation if you know your boxing history. This isn't a new idea, you know.