WBA's new scoring system

[ViperSniper]

I know some posters who had this very discussion not to long ago and then read this. I couldn't find the original news release I came across a couple weeks back but haven't seen any mention here.

The WBA giving the new scoring system a go is a good move.



http://www.eastsideboxing.com/2012/wbas-...kes-sense/


By James Slater ? Earlier this week, invaluable news outlet Fightnews.com reported on a story that says the WBA will soon bring in a new system of fight-scoring that the organisation hopes will cut short the seemingly growing number of controversially-scored bouts.

The WBA is planning to bring in a system whereby if a round of a fight is close, the winner, instead of receiving a 10-9 tally, will only receive a score of 10-9.5. If, however, fighter A wins the round big (but doesn?t score a knockdown) he will win by the old way of 10-9. Naturally, if either fighter does score a knockdown, he will win the round 10-8.

This idea, in my opinion, makes sense ? at least on paper.


The WBA will soon implement the new system in European and NABA and PABA title fights. Presumably, if the system is proven to work, world titles will follow.
Think of all the close, crucial rounds you?ve seen in big fights, where the fighter who won a certain round by a full point barely deserved to. The judges has to obey the rules and either score these rounds even or give it to one of the fighters by a full point ? even if the fighter deemed to have scraped the three-minutes landed maybe one more punch or so than the other guy. The new system will make the job of the three judges (by no means an easy job) that much simpler and the end results would only lead to fairer results ? that?s the idea anyway.

Take the recent Manny Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez third fight for example (or, while we?re at it, the even more recent Pacquiao-Tim Bradley controversy). In both of these fights there were nip-and-tuck rounds that were, under the old system, scored to the winner of the session by a full point. Had the many close rounds been scored by only a half a point margin, we might not have had the uproar we had after both 12-round points decision.

The proposed system will not totally eradicate bad, controversial and debatable decisions (What if a judge gives fighter A and fighter B the same amount of half-point round wins? We?d still have a close fight at the end, maybe a draw) but it?s at least worth a go. A fighter knowing he will only win a round by a half point if he?s lazy will surely work that much harder to secure the round by a full point.

This alone would stop fighters from coasting through rounds and this would, hopefully, lead to more action-packed fights with more punches thrown.

[lloyd mayflower]

Good in theory but needlessly complex, wh not just score rounds draws when there is no clear winner???

[ViperSniper]

lloyd mayflower Wrote:Good in theory but needlessly complex, wh not just score rounds draws when there is no clear winner???

I think that is exactly what they intend on doing..
However it may not stop bad/off judging depending on what they 'like' and then there is that argument of how clear is clear to get a full pointed round!?

Not sure how they would score a very close competitive fight in both a very low activity round with nothing really landing & a very close competitive toe to toe round with both fighters landing!?

I still think it may be harder for judges to justify questionable scorecards & could have been the difference in big bouts in the past!

[Romulus9]

Stupid and unnecessary.

The present system is fine as long as judges know what the hell they're doing.

It's like changing the rules of football because referees don't know how to rule pass interference. Don't change the rules, get better officials.

Shit.

[blackbelt2003]

Not too keen on tampering with scoring.



Basically the ten point must system as it is has been designed so that you either win, lose or draw a round. There's no 'winning it big' or 'only just winning it'. You win it or you lose it.


However, the problem with that is that it completely reduces the need for knockdowns, which is why if you get knocked down you lose it by two points. Or three if you're knocked down twice.


I don't see the problem. Sure, one guy can nick close rounds whilst the other wins his big....but they've still won an equal amount of rounds, regardless of how they won them.



Keep it as it is. Boxing has enough mess to deal with without changing the rules and piloting new scoring systems. Sort the other stuff out first.






Black

[Dickagon]

i think 10-10 rounds need to come back. you don't see them at all anymore. it would make more sense to score 10-10 for a close round instead of flipping a coin to give somebody a 10-9 round and putting the other guy behind.

[lloyd mayflower]

gravytrain Wrote:i think 10-10 rounds need to come back. you don't see them at all anymore. it would make more sense to score 10-10 for a close round instead of flipping a coin to give somebody a 10-9 round and putting the other guy behind.

Yeah totally, thats what i was thinking so i guess i agree with you and romulis. no need to invent a new system, just get people to use the current one as intended.

[Romulus9]

There needs to be an informed, educated, and properly used middle ground between never using even rounds at all for any reason, and scoring a 15 round fight 3-2 with TEN EVEN ROUNDS like Angelo Poletti did for Duran-Leonard I.

[Fitz]

I like the idea of the scoring method. Someone like myself or any other capable and non-bias person on this board (which would be most) would be able to use it and have success using it. Just like we would with the current system.

The problem is, judges can't (or not allowed for certain fights) even score properly with the current and very basic system we have in place. If they can't work the current system correctly, the new one will leave even more room for bad judging.

[BrutalBodyShots]

I'm all for scoring reform.

If a fighter works hard enough in a round to make it a one sided, dominant round he should come away with a wider score in that round than if he were to just eek it out. That's always been my opinion and I've never understood why rounds that are barely won are scored the same as rounds that are dominantly won.

Fights are won based on points, not rounds. Perfect example is Pacquiao-Marquez I. It doesn't matter that Marquez clearly won more rounds.

I don't think it should be limited to just knock downs though, like in that fight.

If one fighter eeks out 6 rounds in a fight while the other dominates the other 6 rounds of the fight (and there are no knock downs or point deductions) I feel that the guy that dominated his 6 rounds should be awarded the decision. The overall "feel" of fans and whoever watches the fight will be that the guy that dominated 6 rounds won. He will without question have landed more and more meaningful punches.

A fight such as that would be scored something like 114-117. A close fight yes, but a clear winner.