Should draws be eliminated in boxing?

[Fitz]

I don't even think the issue is 'bad' judging. I think it's just corruption.

[blackbelt2003]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

JD Wrote:I have no issue with a draw...if a fight is even and in the end, they each won an equal amount of rounds, I can't see a reason not to have it a draw.

I just think we need better judges so the fights that are actually even end up draws...and while we are at it, better matchmakers so the fights that are draws aren't scored that way because they suck.

So you're ok with a round being won big or being won by a hair resulting in the same exact score... 10-9?

Yeah, I think so....It's just an extension of the old 'who won the most rounds?' theory. Old fights used to be scored, say, 8-6-1 in rounds. The ten point must system changes that only slightly by adding in 10-8 and 10-7 rounds for knockdowns, or else there's no point in scoring a knockdown.


But with knockdowns and minus points excluded, the whole 10-9 thing is just like 'who won the most rounds?', which is truer to the old rules than deciding who won their rounds in a bigger way.



Black

[JD]

Fitz Wrote:I don't even think the issue is 'bad' judging. I think it's just corruption.

I would argue that "corrupt" judging would fall under the category of "bad" judging.

[JD]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

JD Wrote:I have no issue with a draw...if a fight is even and in the end, they each won an equal amount of rounds, I can't see a reason not to have it a draw.

I just think we need better judges so the fights that are actually even end up draws...and while we are at it, better matchmakers so the fights that are draws aren't scored that way because they suck.

So you're ok with a round being won big or being won by a hair resulting in the same exact score... 10-9?

I don't think there is a way to eliminate subjectivity.

I have seen plenty of non-KD rounds result in a 10-8 score while a close round was 10-9. If you want commissions to tell judges to award 10-8 rounds a bit more liberally you could give it a try I suppose.

But that wasn't the question - the question was whether or not I think draws should be eliminated, and I would say that they unequivocally not be eliminated. If you want to alter what determines a 10-9...10-8...10-7 round, that could be something worth experimenting with I suppose...I don't know.

But I would go back to better judging, match making, and would add (most importantly in fact) better refereeing. When you have shit fighters who are allowed to stay in fights because all they do is break the rules and hold all night, you end up with horrible fights that are conceivably closer than they should be when in fact they should never have gotten to that point if the refs just enforced the rules.

I think a lot of these terrible fights that end up draws wouldn't go the way they do if you had refs simply enforcing the rules.

[BrutalBodyShots]

I don't suggest that there's a way to eliminate subjectivity - but with scoring the way it is now we are more likely to see a score card that isn't in line with what we just viewed with our own two eyes.

It just doesn't make sense to me that in every other sport basically that I can think of... golf, football, baseball, etc each period, round, hole, inning, quarter, whatever doesn't yield the same score. The score depends on the person or teams performance during that time. Could you imagine if football was scored based on quarters? The first team wins the first 3 quarters 3-0, goes into the fourth up 9-0 and in the last quarter the losing team scores 2 TD's but loses since they lost in quarters 3-1?

I dunno, something to me just doesn't seem right with the current system. Not saying that my suggested solution is THE solution, but I feel as if some sort of reform needs to take place simply for it to make sense.

[JD]

I don't think the issue is the draw itself, I think the issue is how some fights end up draws.

If we started with refs who were flat out better and called the fights according to the rules it would make a HUGE difference. Penalize guys for not fighting and holding, you will see an improvement in fight quality as well as fights that are easier to score.

[BrutalBodyShots]

JD Wrote:I don't think the issue is the draw itself, I think the issue is how some fights end up draws.

If we started with refs who were flat out better and called the fights according to the rules it would make a HUGE difference. Penalize guys for not fighting and holding, you will see an improvement in fight quality as well as fights that are easier to score.

I agree... but referees also by human nature are subjective as well, so what counts as holding to one won't to another.

Until we get to the level of corners being able to challenge calls or view slow motion instant replays I think we're going to be in the same boat.

[JD]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

JD Wrote:I don't think the issue is the draw itself, I think the issue is how some fights end up draws.

If we started with refs who were flat out better and called the fights according to the rules it would make a HUGE difference. Penalize guys for not fighting and holding, you will see an improvement in fight quality as well as fights that are easier to score.

I agree... but referees also by human nature are subjective as well, so what counts as holding to one won't to another.

Until we get to the level of corners being able to challenge calls or view slow motion instant replays I think we're going to be in the same boat.

Sure, but if you set a standard and holding is more frequently penalized across the board (regardless whether some are harder on it than others), it is a good thing no matter what.

[Fitz]

JD Wrote:I would argue that "corrupt" judging would fall under the category of "bad" judging.

I was responding to this quote.

JD Wrote:I just think we need better judges so the fights that are actually even end up draws...and while we are at it, better matchmakers so the fights that are draws aren't scored that way because they suck.

I don't think so, as getting 'better' judges won't be the solution. I bet a lot of these judges aren't even that 'bad' if they score a fight how 'they' see it. Unfortunately, with a lot of the fights that are on the big stage and for the world to see, I personally don't believe they can score fights how 'they' see it and need to score it differently. That's just my opinion, and I personally don't think the problem is judges not being able to 'score' fights, I just think it reflects poorly on them at the end.

JD Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

JD Wrote:I have no issue with a draw...if a fight is even and in the end, they each won an equal amount of rounds, I can't see a reason not to have it a draw.

I just think we need better judges so the fights that are actually even end up draws...and while we are at it, better matchmakers so the fights that are draws aren't scored that way because they suck.

So you're ok with a round being won big or being won by a hair resulting in the same exact score... 10-9?

I don't think there is a way to eliminate subjectivity.

I have seen plenty of non-KD rounds result in a 10-8 score while a close round was 10-9. If you want commissions to tell judges to award 10-8 rounds a bit more liberally you could give it a try I suppose.

But that wasn't the question - the question was whether or not I think draws should be eliminated, and I would say that they unequivocally not be eliminated. If you want to alter what determines a 10-9...10-8...10-7 round, that could be something worth experimenting with I suppose...I don't know.

But I would go back to better judging, match making, and would add (most importantly in fact) better refereeing. When you have shit fighters who are allowed to stay in fights because all they do is break the rules and hold all night, you end up with horrible fights that are conceivably closer than they should be when in fact they should never have gotten to that point if the refs just enforced the rules.

I think a lot of these terrible fights that end up draws wouldn't go the way they do if you had refs simply enforcing the rules.

Good post JD, though I don't know why you and ClinchaBox are so anal about clinching. Why does it have to be so black and white for you guys, and why can't you just not judge each situation on it's merits? Just like running that Hakkar did, and Mosley with Pacquiao in extreme cases, and then there is Mayweather type like with DLH and Baldomir.
Much like clinching, I think you can have extreme cases where people use it purely as a strategy to 'survive a whole fight', without having any offence. Then you have others that use it to survive a 'moment' and sparingly, as a way they can change the pace a slight, or to nullify an opponents offence. I don't have a problem with this, I do have a problem when it's being used, not to try and win the fight, but to survive a fight.

For example Shane Mosley, who has been one of the bigger 'offenders' when it comes to you two, and I can't say for yourself, but I know that ClinchaBox even had an issue with the Margarito fight. I also don't think that performance was 'horrible' like these guys tend to do.
I agree, it isn't an exciting move by any stretch, but I at least understand it. Though that doesn't mean I find the aspect of clinching, exciting. A lot of sports can have a very non-fan friendly, defensive type of style that just doesn't appeal to the audience. The Italian national soccer side for example, clubs in the AFL here do, I'm sure you have clubs in the NBA and NFL who are like this.
It's a competitive business, some people will do anything to try and win, even though it may not be in the spirit on how people like to win. But in the end, winning is all that matters to a lot of people.
I think each situation should be judged on its merits regarding clinching. All sports will have fights/games that aren't exciting. I've seen shit fights between no fighters that really hold and I have seen entertaining fights involving a guy that does clinch.

[JD]

Speaking only for myself...I hate clinching non-stop because it ruins the sport.

When refs enforce the rules, the fights are better. Superior fighters are able to put their skills on display and shit fighters don't go further than they should.

A perfect example is Berto - Collazo...the ref took charge and would not allow holding all night from the opening bell. As a result, we got a terrific fight instead of a normal Berto fight. This new breed of fighter we have where non-stop clinching is a form of defense sucks, and it is bad for the sport.

Go back even to the 90's and watch fights, they were so much different. Boxing was more popular because it was better...people tuned in because they were entertained...and they were entertained because the fighters followed the rules more stringently, and in turn the matches were good. The rules are in place to make the fights more entertaining, you should want them enforced stringently.

I mean, think back to the Lennox Lewis - Henry Akinwande fight. Now we would probably hear the announcers talk about how Akinwande was frustrating Lewis with his tactics, back then they just disqualified his ass. The rules protect the sport and force fighters to fight.

I just get so frustrated watching tactics that are not only illegal, but ruin the sport being generally accepted as part of a game plan. Refs let is slide, fans don't think twice about it, only recently announcers seem to be getting on fighters for it a bit more - and maybe that has something to do with ratings being a shred of what they once were. Back in 1997, something like 8 or 9 million people tuned into HBO to watch Johnny Tapia fight Danny Romero...think about that for one second.

We should just want the fights fought as they should be...by the rules of boxing. Screw all this mugging, holding, hugging and whatever else you want to call it. Seriously, it is a big problem with the deterioration of the sport we all love so much.