Scoring close rounds: favour the champ?

[aries]

Well even a round winning shot on the TV, can be entirely blocked by the ref or a fighters position, maybe go and sit ringside for a few fights, you will see what i mean

I've been ringside for plenty of fights, I used to box and supported all my club mates in their fights. I still don't see why NOT being able to see some of the action would mean it was more likely to be a clear 10-9 than a draw.

 

[Krimzon]

I've been ringside for plenty of fights, I used to box and supported all my club mates in their fights. I still don't see why NOT being able to see some of the action would mean it was more likely to be a clear 10-9 than a draw.

but what if a 10 10 round eventually leads to a robbery? there would be so much outrage amongst fans.

 

[treelo]

I've been ringside for plenty of fights, I used to box and supported all my club mates in their fights. I still don't see why NOT being able to see some of the action would mean it was more likely to be a clear 10-9 than a draw.

In a close round where one hard shot landed which swung the round, yet you could not see it due to an obstructed view.....

It's not rocket science

I'm not trying to excuse every shitty judge decision ever, but it's real easy not to see an important punch if your view is obscured.....or even entire combinations, you seriously cannot tell me that you have been sat ringside and fights and not missed entire exchanges because the ref/fighter was oscuring the view?

 

[mozfonky]

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?

i didn't score the fight but I thought pac won just because he won more rounds and was more active, keith landed better punches overall but it wasn't enough, especially if he didn't hurt the man or put him down. Even if the criteria was clean shots, it wasn't enough. It was competitive, not a washout by any measure but I think a clear win for Manny.

 

[mozfonky]

I've been ringside for plenty of fights, I used to box and supported all my club mates in their fights. I still don't see why NOT being able to see some of the action would mean it was more likely to be a clear 10-9 than a draw.

they had this thing in the eighties which was stupidly parroted by the boxing media, that a fight in person looks vastly different than it does on screen, i guess it's true but to the point where you can't deduce who won? no, i don't think so. in the eighties it was common for someone to say "i scored it for so and so but i saw it on tv".

 

[5acrossYOeye]

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?

Yeah, give the round to the guy you think won.

 

[mozfonky]

historically, they give the rounds to the champs, it was that way in the past, fair or not. Especially great champions like Louis or Ali who got close decisions that could be called "robbery's". They say a crowd on one side or the other influences judging too, it shouldn't but that's what they say. Many a bad hometown decision has been seen. Roy Jones' fear of fighting overseas had sound logic to it after all these years, you're not going to get a fair shake in someone else's backyard. I still cannot figure out why Whitaker's people agreed to fight chavez in a pro chavez arena when they knew Whitaker didn't have the punch to end it and he'd already been robbed before. Poor sweet pea, he never truly lost a fight until the trinidad fight.

 

[mozfonky]

also, i find if interesting just how much a judges criteria affects their scores. Arthur Mercante was about the most competent official you'll ever see and yet he gave the third Norton fight to Ali when just about everyone else thought Norton won it. His words were that the fifteenth round would decide the winner and Norton threw away the fifteenth which he overheard kenny's corner telling him to coast in the 15th. it cost him the fight, and even still, most people thought he won. Even Ali is on camera saying he lost and dr. ferdie pacheco confirmed that he said he lost to him personally. Mercante's rationale? who knows, maybe he was giving the champion the benefit of the doubt and the fight was close. it wasn't like Ali was the aggressor, it wasn't like he hit the hardest, I'm sure the ring generalship factored in as Mercante said that ali was still the smartest fighter he'd ever seen at pulling out close rounds and said it was like ali was watching himself from outside the ring, that's how highly he thought of Ali's ring generalship, almost mystic.

 

[aries]

but what if a 10 10 round eventually leads to a robbery? there would be so much outrage amongst fans.

And what if it leads to the right result?

 

[aries]

In a close round where one hard shot landed which swung the round, yet you could not see it due to an obstructed view.....

It's not rocket science

I'm not trying to excuse every shitty judge decision ever, but it's real easy not to see an important punch if your view is obscured.....or even entire combinations, you seriously cannot tell me that you have been sat ringside and fights and not missed entire exchanges because the ref/fighter was oscuring the view?

But that applies to scoring 10-9 rounds as well!

 

[Krimzon]

And what if it leads to the right result?

you have to understand that 10 10 is never the right result. Thus, using them is automatically inciting outrage.

 

[Hagler]

you have to understand that 10 10 is never the right result.

Source ?

 

[treelo]

But that applies to scoring 10-9 rounds as well!

Yes it does, but the judges are paid to score a fight, and 10-10 rounds are a no-no, if you cant see the difference in a round, then you shouldnt be a judge(which is why we arent)

 

[Krimzon]

Source ?

ok i dont have one, but 10 10s indicate that the judge is incompetent and unable to choose a winner.

 

[aries]

you have to understand that 10 10 is never the right result. Thus, using them is automatically inciting outrage.

That is what called an opinion. So you are saying that it is impossible for two fighters to draw a round? Lol that is ridiculous!

 

[aries]

Yes it does, but the judges are paid to score a fight, and 10-10 rounds are a no-no, if you cant see the difference in a round, then you shouldnt be a judge(which is why we arent)

Like I said to the other mentally challenged poster, so is impossible to have a drawn round? That is just ridiculous.

 

[Hagler]

ok i dont have one, but 10 10s indicate that the judge is incompetent and unable to choose a winner.

Given the current set of rules, 10-10 rounds are acceptable. Scoring criteria allow judges to pick a round winner more often than not, but they shouldn't avoid scoring an occasional 10-10 if they really believe the criteria aren't enough to score it a 10-9.

 

[treelo]

Like I said to the other mentally challenged poster, so is impossible to have a drawn round? That is just ridiculous.

Its not impossible, its entirely feasible in rounds in which knockdown or deductions occur...it should not happen in a round with no deductions or knockdowns

 

[mozfonky]

let's not forget to just say that politics and corruption have always been a part of the sport too. Anytime a fight goes to the cards there is room for tomfoolery.

 

[pookiyama]

Whoever took less damage/Impact. I can't think of a situation where the fighter who I'd rather be in a round lost the round, short of a surprise KD causing a three point swing.