WBA's new scoring system

[blackbelt2003]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:Black, I'd propose a knock down round be a 10-7 round. I'm pretty sure I wrote about this the last time we had a scoring thread. I'd make it something like:

10-10 = even round
10-9 = close round but you feel one guy won it slightly
10-8 = dominant round you feel one guy clearly won
10-7 = round with a knock down

I do feel that knock downs are significant events in a fight and should be scored accordingly, giving the man standing extra credit for getting it done.

I definitely hear you, bro, and I can see the logic in what you're saying, I guess I'm just old school. I still work out fights in rounds (like 7-5 or 8-4 or whatever) and then knock off the knockdown points. Maybe that's why I fight a more liberal scoring system so much.



Black

[BrutalBodyShots]

Rom,

I do agree with you that proper judging is a big problem in getting accurate scoring for fights - however, if you take that factor completely away and say judges did score perfectly accurate 100% of the time... with the current scoring system there still isn't any differentiation between a round closely won and a round widely won.

With the current system:

In round 1 if Fighter A lands 5 punches and Fighter B lands 10 punches (all punches being equal), Fighter B wins the round 10-9

In round 2 if Fighter A lands 50 punches and Fighter B lands 10 punches (all punches being equal), Fighter A wins the round 10-9

The score in this fight after 2 rounds is 19-19... an even fight even though Fighter A has outlanded Fighter B 55-20.

If round 2 were scored 10-8 as I believe it should, Fighter A would be up 19-18 after 2 rounds... a score that much more closely represents what we just saw over 2 rounds.

I agree that the problem is judges being split between who won round 1 in the example above. I think 99% of the time all would agree who won round 2.

[KingEugene]

If it aint completely broke...dont fix it.

[BrutalBodyShots]

KingEugene Wrote:If it aint completely broke...dont fix it.

IMO it is completely broke.

It's rare that I see score cards that actually reflect what I saw happen in the ring.

There are times we see 120-108 cards that looked like a Roy Jones dominate decision in the late 90's and other times we see a 120-108 card of a fight that's perfectly competitive, just one guy barely eeks out every round. Fights that different shouldn't yield the same score card.

[blackbelt2003]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

KingEugene Wrote:If it aint completely broke...dont fix it.

IMO it is completely broke.

It's rare that I see score cards that actually reflect what I saw happen in the ring.

There are times we see 120-108 cards that looked like a Roy Jones dominate decision in the late 90's and other times we see a 120-108 card of a fight that's perfectly competitive, just one guy barely eeks out every round. Fights that different shouldn't yield the same score card.

But that's why the fight is broken into rounds IMO. It's like scoring twelve mini fights. If it was gonna be who dominated the fight as a whole, then, yeah, I see what you mean and we should score it that way.


But because it's broken into rounds, we score it as rounds, which means a close round and an easy round are scored the same way. I've no problem with that. You win the round, you win the round. The margin doesn't matter.





Black

[BrutalBodyShots]

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

KingEugene Wrote:If it aint completely broke...dont fix it.

IMO it is completely broke.

It's rare that I see score cards that actually reflect what I saw happen in the ring.

There are times we see 120-108 cards that looked like a Roy Jones dominate decision in the late 90's and other times we see a 120-108 card of a fight that's perfectly competitive, just one guy barely eeks out every round. Fights that different shouldn't yield the same score card.

But that's why the fight is broken into rounds IMO. It's like scoring twelve mini fights. If it was gonna be who dominated the fight as a whole, then, yeah, I see what you mean and we should score it that way.


But because it's broken into rounds, we score it as rounds, which means a close round and an easy round are scored the same way. I've no problem with that. You win the round, you win the round. The margin doesn't matter.





Black

But clearly margin DOES matter, or things like knock downs, point deductions etc would be irrelevant. You win the round you win the round right? Who cares if you hit a guy in the nuts and get knocked on your ass. Why should that be a 10-7 round and not a 10-9 since margins don't matter?

Point being margins do matter. That said, there should be a way to differentiate on paper (scoring) between a guy mopping the floor with his opponent for 3 minutes or him coasting through a round and winning it by the slimmest margin.


Can you imagine if some other sports were scored based on the individual segments it was broken into?

A football team wins the first 3 quarters of a game kicking a single field goal in each quarter while shutting out the opponent. The opponent scores 3 TD's in the final quarter and keeps the first team from scoring at all. Final score of the game 9-21 but the team with 21 loses because the team with 9 points won 3-1 in quarters.

A baseball team scores 1 run in all 9 innings while the opponent scores 10 runs in just the bottom of the 9th after being shut out all night. The first team however wins by a huge margin, 8-1 in innings.

[Fitz]

Brutal, if you think about it, tennis isn't much different to boxing.

Federer and Nadal may play, and Federer wins the match in 5 sets.

He wins 2-6 3-6 7-6 7-6 7-5

It's set out in 5 segments. Nadal clearly won his sets much more comfortable and over 5 sets he wins 29 games and Federer wins 26 games. Though Federer wins the match.

[BrutalBodyShots]

Fitz Wrote:Brutal, if you think about it, tennis isn't much different to boxing.

Federer and Nadal may play, and Federer wins the match in 5 sets.

He wins 2-6 3-6 7-6 7-6 7-5

It's set out in 5 segments. Nadal clearly won his sets much more comfortable and over 5 sets he wins 29 games and Federer wins 26 games. Though Federer wins the match.

I had considered tennis when posting, and yes it's an example similar to boxing and another one I disagree with. In your example it would seem to me that while Federer wins the match, Nadal overall played better and deserved the win. I don't know jack about tennis, but it seems backwards to me.

One glaring difference between tennis and boxing however is that the scores of a tennis match are up on the board the entire time so both players as well as the audience knows exactly where the two men or women stand. With boxing you never know.

If scoring in football and baseball for example were based on quarters and innings won and not the overall score, the overall competitiveness of the sport would be diminished. In any FB quarter that becomes a two possession quarter for either team to win the quarter, the winning team will do everything they can to run out the clock (make the game boring) just to win the quarter. Same thing in baseball, if team A scores 0 in the top of the inning, once team B scores a single run in the bottom of the inning the inning would end. Again, a lackluster result.

Boxing in a way can fall into the same situation. A guy knows he's won the first 7 rounds of a fight so he goes into coast mode for the duration. The other guy if he isn't a puncher or is facing an iron jawed opponent may give up trying. We see this type of shit all the time. But in boxing unlike other sports you get things like corrupt/biased judging, so at times when things like this happen for example like in Trinidad/DLH it came back to bite Oscar in the ass. But that's exactly what he did - felt he was up on rounds and couldn't lose if he just stayed on his feet. Had margins mattered in rounds he wouldn't have been able to try and coast down the stretch.

[blackbelt2003]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

KingEugene Wrote:If it aint completely broke...dont fix it.

IMO it is completely broke.

It's rare that I see score cards that actually reflect what I saw happen in the ring.

There are times we see 120-108 cards that looked like a Roy Jones dominate decision in the late 90's and other times we see a 120-108 card of a fight that's perfectly competitive, just one guy barely eeks out every round. Fights that different shouldn't yield the same score card.

But that's why the fight is broken into rounds IMO. It's like scoring twelve mini fights. If it was gonna be who dominated the fight as a whole, then, yeah, I see what you mean and we should score it that way.


But because it's broken into rounds, we score it as rounds, which means a close round and an easy round are scored the same way. I've no problem with that. You win the round, you win the round. The margin doesn't matter.





Black

But clearly margin DOES matter, or things like knock downs, point deductions etc would be irrelevant. You win the round you win the round right? Who cares if you hit a guy in the nuts and get knocked on your ass. Why should that be a 10-7 round and not a 10-9 since margins don't matter?

Point being margins do matter. That said, there should be a way to differentiate on paper (scoring) between a guy mopping the floor with his opponent for 3 minutes or him coasting through a round and winning it by the slimmest margin.


Can you imagine if some other sports were scored based on the individual segments it was broken into?

A football team wins the first 3 quarters of a game kicking a single field goal in each quarter while shutting out the opponent. The opponent scores 3 TD's in the final quarter and keeps the first team from scoring at all. Final score of the game 9-21 but the team with 21 loses because the team with 9 points won 3-1 in quarters.

A baseball team scores 1 run in all 9 innings while the opponent scores 10 runs in just the bottom of the 9th after being shut out all night. The first team however wins by a huge margin, 8-1 in innings.

And point deductions and knockdowns are where it should end IMO. No extra points for being a better boxer, please. It would just make it impossible for punchers to win unless by KO, as obviously the fancy dan boxers are going to keep putting 10-8 rounds in the bag. The puncher would have to score at least six knockdowns to even it out, lol.





Black

[Fitz]

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

KingEugene Wrote:If it aint completely broke...dont fix it.

IMO it is completely broke.

It's rare that I see score cards that actually reflect what I saw happen in the ring.

There are times we see 120-108 cards that looked like a Roy Jones dominate decision in the late 90's and other times we see a 120-108 card of a fight that's perfectly competitive, just one guy barely eeks out every round. Fights that different shouldn't yield the same score card.

But that's why the fight is broken into rounds IMO. It's like scoring twelve mini fights. If it was gonna be who dominated the fight as a whole, then, yeah, I see what you mean and we should score it that way.


But because it's broken into rounds, we score it as rounds, which means a close round and an easy round are scored the same way. I've no problem with that. You win the round, you win the round. The margin doesn't matter.





Black

But clearly margin DOES matter, or things like knock downs, point deductions etc would be irrelevant. You win the round you win the round right? Who cares if you hit a guy in the nuts and get knocked on your ass. Why should that be a 10-7 round and not a 10-9 since margins don't matter?

Point being margins do matter. That said, there should be a way to differentiate on paper (scoring) between a guy mopping the floor with his opponent for 3 minutes or him coasting through a round and winning it by the slimmest margin.


Can you imagine if some other sports were scored based on the individual segments it was broken into?

A football team wins the first 3 quarters of a game kicking a single field goal in each quarter while shutting out the opponent. The opponent scores 3 TD's in the final quarter and keeps the first team from scoring at all. Final score of the game 9-21 but the team with 21 loses because the team with 9 points won 3-1 in quarters.

A baseball team scores 1 run in all 9 innings while the opponent scores 10 runs in just the bottom of the 9th after being shut out all night. The first team however wins by a huge margin, 8-1 in innings.

And point deductions and knockdowns are where it should end IMO. No extra points for being a better boxer, please. It would just make it impossible for punchers to win unless by KO, as obviously the fancy dan boxers are going to keep putting 10-8 rounds in the bag. The puncher would have to score at least six knockdowns to even it out, lol.





Black

That's actually a good point, I have not thought of that, lol.

I have thought about the system that Brutal has suggested, and I have suggested the same. That would be a good system to use, if we had competent judges or honest ones.
But they have trouble and score rounds wrong with the simplest of options:

Which fighter won the round? A or B?

Now they are going to have this?

Which fighter won the round?
A closley
A widely
B closely
B widely

This system will be much too difficult for them I think (it shouldn't). It just leaves more room for shitter cards.