WBA's new scoring system

[ROLLDEEP]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:

Fitz Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:The new WBA scoring system would not make it harder for any kind of boxer to win fights than the current one thats already used. It would just make margins closer & possibly prevent boxers from coasting.

I'm all for even 10-10 rounds & having championship fights have an odd amount of rounds weather that be 13 or 15 rounds.

Yes it would. blackbelt has already shown why. Maybe not for every fight, but it does leave that scenario for a certain fighter.

By the same token a brawler, pressure fighter, high work rate fighter would still have the same oppotunity they do now to steal rounds (big or small) than the new WBA scoring system. 'boxers' would not be in any more favor in the new system. There will still be judges around who still look for aggression, high work rate, heavier or cleaner shots.

Only time is when it may favor a 'boxer' (..or any superior opponent) is if they are coasting & find themselves in a situation where they all of a sudden need to put thier foot down on the pedal. But that comes back to why this scoring system may work (which also comes down to good judging). It will not make the margins of the final scorecards wider, but closer & may prevent fighters from coasting.

But generally, when a pure boxer wins a round, they win it in dominant fashion.



When a slugger wins a round, they almost take as many shots as they give and win it on heart and power.



Therefore, all the dominant rounds would go in the boxer's favour. For a slugger to have a dominant round he'd have to be teeing off on the guy.



Say goodbye to all your Jake LaMottas, Arturo Gattis, Carl Frochs and the other guys who keep the fight game alive. They'd be losing plenty of decisions they'd be winning with today's scoring.





Black

Black, I don't get your rationale.

If a brawler is going to lose more rounds than he wins in a fight, he's going to lose. It doesn't matter if he loses 7 rounds 10-9, loses 7 rounds 10-8 or loses 7 rounds 10-1. Regardless he's going to lose.

That said, if he's going to KO his opponent within 12 rounds, the score isn't relevant as score cards go out the window in the event of a KO.

Therefore in the case of the brawler, what does a different scoring system matter?

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black

[blackbelt2003]

ROLLDEEP Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:

Fitz Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:The new WBA scoring system would not make it harder for any kind of boxer to win fights than the current one thats already used. It would just make margins closer & possibly prevent boxers from coasting.

I'm all for even 10-10 rounds & having championship fights have an odd amount of rounds weather that be 13 or 15 rounds.

Yes it would. blackbelt has already shown why. Maybe not for every fight, but it does leave that scenario for a certain fighter.

By the same token a brawler, pressure fighter, high work rate fighter would still have the same oppotunity they do now to steal rounds (big or small) than the new WBA scoring system. 'boxers' would not be in any more favor in the new system. There will still be judges around who still look for aggression, high work rate, heavier or cleaner shots.

Only time is when it may favor a 'boxer' (..or any superior opponent) is if they are coasting & find themselves in a situation where they all of a sudden need to put thier foot down on the pedal. But that comes back to why this scoring system may work (which also comes down to good judging). It will not make the margins of the final scorecards wider, but closer & may prevent fighters from coasting.

But generally, when a pure boxer wins a round, they win it in dominant fashion.



When a slugger wins a round, they almost take as many shots as they give and win it on heart and power.



Therefore, all the dominant rounds would go in the boxer's favour. For a slugger to have a dominant round he'd have to be teeing off on the guy.



Say goodbye to all your Jake LaMottas, Arturo Gattis, Carl Frochs and the other guys who keep the fight game alive. They'd be losing plenty of decisions they'd be winning with today's scoring.





Black

Black, I don't get your rationale.

If a brawler is going to lose more rounds than he wins in a fight, he's going to lose. It doesn't matter if he loses 7 rounds 10-9, loses 7 rounds 10-8 or loses 7 rounds 10-1. Regardless he's going to lose.

That said, if he's going to KO his opponent within 12 rounds, the score isn't relevant as score cards go out the window in the event of a KO.

Therefore in the case of the brawler, what does a different scoring system matter?

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black




Shoot, Roll forgot to log out!!! Sorry

[ViperSniper]

^^^
would the boxer not win 10-9 for a clear round still? And the brawler 10-9.5? Have I missed something? Where is 10-8 coming from for a clear round?

[torvix2000]

There will still be subjectiveness no matter what.

Bottomline, whichever scoring system makes boxing more exciting, I'm in favor of. Let's make legit knockdown 10-7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fitz]

ViperSniper Wrote:^^^
would the boxer not win 10-9 for a clear round still? And the brawler 10-9.5? Have I missed something? Where is 10-8 coming from for a clear round?

lol. It honestly doesn't matter what scoring method is used. He is just using the one that BBS proposed earlier
in the thread, and in a thread months ago.

http://s13.zetaboards.com/Boxing_Unfilte...&t=6968436

Quote: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.

Originally came from this thread.

http://s13.zetaboards.com/Boxing_Unfilte...6917419/1/
________________________________________________________________________________​__________________

But does it really matter? He is still right no matter what method you use (WBA's or the one BBS proposed).

WBA Method (Brawler wins 7 close rounds to 5 clear rounds to the boxer)
Brawler 115 (Won 7 x 10 point rounds and lost 5 x 9 point rounds as he lost them clear)
Boxer 116.5 (Won 5 x 10 point rounds and lost 7 x 9.5 point rounds because he lost them closely)

Brutal's Method (Brawler wins 7 close rounds to 5 clear rounds to the boxer)
Brawler 110
Boxer 113

lol, see. I tried to explain it to you the other day. The fighter who won 7 rounds still loses those fights in that scenario.

[ViperSniper]

Fitz Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:^^^
would the boxer not win 10-9 for a clear round still? And the brawler 10-9.5? Have I missed something? Where is 10-8 coming from for a clear round?

lol. It honestly doesn't matter what scoring method is used. He is just using the one that BBS proposed earlier
in the thread, and in a thread months ago.

http://s13.zetaboards.com/Boxing_Unfilte...&t=6968436

Quote: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.

Originally came from this thread.

http://s13.zetaboards.com/Boxing_Unfilte...6917419/1/
________________________________________________________________________________​__________________

But does it really matter? He is still right no matter what method you use (WBA's or the one BBS proposed).

WBA Method (Brawler wins 7 close rounds to 5 clear rounds to the boxer)
Brawler 115 (Won 7 x 10 point rounds and lost 5 x 9 point rounds as he lost them clear)
Boxer 116.5 (Won 5 x 10 point rounds and lost 7 x 9.5 point rounds because he lost them closely)

Brutal's Method (Brawler wins 7 close rounds to 5 clear rounds to the boxer)
Brawler 110
Boxer 113

lol, see. I tried to explain it to you the other day. The fighter who won 7 rounds still loses those fights in that scenario.

Oh right. I got confused thinking Brutal's scoring system (of clear rounds) was the same as the new WBA scoring system.

Lol and I explained it back to you the other day..using Brandon Rios as an example. Brawlers can win rounds clearly too.
Yous are using one scenario that involves are boxer wining clearly. so if your stickin to one example that is an assumption that the boxer will always win clear & the brawler wins only close then of course it's not going to work. Switch around scenario.


I'm not here sayin that I'm against the current system..or the new one is better. I do however think it could work & eliminate coasting..or wouldnt favor a 'style'.

[BrutalBodyShots]

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ROLLDEEP Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:

Fitz Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:The new WBA scoring system would not make it harder for any kind of boxer to win fights than the current one thats already used. It would just make margins closer & possibly prevent boxers from coasting.

I'm all for even 10-10 rounds & having championship fights have an odd amount of rounds weather that be 13 or 15 rounds.

Yes it would. blackbelt has already shown why. Maybe not for every fight, but it does leave that scenario for a certain fighter.

By the same token a brawler, pressure fighter, high work rate fighter would still have the same oppotunity they do now to steal rounds (big or small) than the new WBA scoring system. 'boxers' would not be in any more favor in the new system. There will still be judges around who still look for aggression, high work rate, heavier or cleaner shots.

Only time is when it may favor a 'boxer' (..or any superior opponent) is if they are coasting & find themselves in a situation where they all of a sudden need to put thier foot down on the pedal. But that comes back to why this scoring system may work (which also comes down to good judging). It will not make the margins of the final scorecards wider, but closer & may prevent fighters from coasting.

But generally, when a pure boxer wins a round, they win it in dominant fashion.



When a slugger wins a round, they almost take as many shots as they give and win it on heart and power.



Therefore, all the dominant rounds would go in the boxer's favour. For a slugger to have a dominant round he'd have to be teeing off on the guy.



Say goodbye to all your Jake LaMottas, Arturo Gattis, Carl Frochs and the other guys who keep the fight game alive. They'd be losing plenty of decisions they'd be winning with today's scoring.





Black

Black, I don't get your rationale.

If a brawler is going to lose more rounds than he wins in a fight, he's going to lose. It doesn't matter if he loses 7 rounds 10-9, loses 7 rounds 10-8 or loses 7 rounds 10-1. Regardless he's going to lose.

That said, if he's going to KO his opponent within 12 rounds, the score isn't relevant as score cards go out the window in the event of a KO.

Therefore in the case of the brawler, what does a different scoring system matter?

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black




Shoot, Roll forgot to log out!!! Sorry

Nope you are incorrect again in wrongly assuming that boxers by default get 10-8 rounds and brawlers get 10-9 rounds for rounds they win.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up or making that assumption.

Brawler wins 7 rounds, boxer wins 5. If they both CLEARLY win all of their rounds the final score would be 110-106 for the brawler under my scoring system, or 115-113 under the traditional system. The scoring system doesn't matter if all of the rounds are won in clear fashion (that is of similar magnitude).

Now, maybe the brawler wins 7 rounds to 5 and of his 7 rounds he wins 4 clearly and 3 slightly. Then the boxer out of his 5 rounds wins 3 clearly and 2 slightly. The final score would be 112-109 for the brawler where under the traditional system it would still be 115-113.

[blackbelt2003]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ROLLDEEP Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:

Fitz Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:The new WBA scoring system would not make it harder for any kind of boxer to win fights than the current one thats already used. It would just make margins closer & possibly prevent boxers from coasting.

I'm all for even 10-10 rounds & having championship fights have an odd amount of rounds weather that be 13 or 15 rounds.

Yes it would. blackbelt has already shown why. Maybe not for every fight, but it does leave that scenario for a certain fighter.

By the same token a brawler, pressure fighter, high work rate fighter would still have the same oppotunity they do now to steal rounds (big or small) than the new WBA scoring system. 'boxers' would not be in any more favor in the new system. There will still be judges around who still look for aggression, high work rate, heavier or cleaner shots.

Only time is when it may favor a 'boxer' (..or any superior opponent) is if they are coasting & find themselves in a situation where they all of a sudden need to put thier foot down on the pedal. But that comes back to why this scoring system may work (which also comes down to good judging). It will not make the margins of the final scorecards wider, but closer & may prevent fighters from coasting.

But generally, when a pure boxer wins a round, they win it in dominant fashion.



When a slugger wins a round, they almost take as many shots as they give and win it on heart and power.



Therefore, all the dominant rounds would go in the boxer's favour. For a slugger to have a dominant round he'd have to be teeing off on the guy.



Say goodbye to all your Jake LaMottas, Arturo Gattis, Carl Frochs and the other guys who keep the fight game alive. They'd be losing plenty of decisions they'd be winning with today's scoring.





Black

Black, I don't get your rationale.

If a brawler is going to lose more rounds than he wins in a fight, he's going to lose. It doesn't matter if he loses 7 rounds 10-9, loses 7 rounds 10-8 or loses 7 rounds 10-1. Regardless he's going to lose.

That said, if he's going to KO his opponent within 12 rounds, the score isn't relevant as score cards go out the window in the event of a KO.

Therefore in the case of the brawler, what does a different scoring system matter?

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black




Shoot, Roll forgot to log out!!! Sorry

Nope you are incorrect again in wrongly assuming that boxers by default get 10-8 rounds and brawlers get 10-9 rounds for rounds they win.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up or making that assumption.

Brawler wins 7 rounds, boxer wins 5. If they both CLEARLY win all of their rounds the final score would be 110-106 for the brawler under my scoring system, or 115-113 under the traditional system. The scoring system doesn't matter if all of the rounds are won in clear fashion (that is of similar magnitude).

Now, maybe the brawler wins 7 rounds to 5 and of his 7 rounds he wins 4 clearly and 3 slightly. Then the boxer out of his 5 rounds wins 3 clearly and 2 slightly. The final score would be 112-109 for the brawler where under the traditional system it would still be 115-113.

OK, let's switch it and say the BOXER wins close rounds and the BRAWLER win dominant rounds.


You still get the guy who won the most rounds losing the fight, which I can't stomach.


Also, the judges can't currently make their mind up who won a round, let alone by what margins. What would constitute a dominant round? Saaaaay...most of the Martinez-Chavez rounds? Froch-Ward rounds? Were most of Donaire's rounds the weekend 10-8's?


Where does the line between 10-9 and 10-8 sit? Because for my mind, most rounds in boxing are fairly clear and dominant. Think of all the rounds you've watched, from prospects to 6 rounders to 10 rounders to world title fights. Most fights are one-sided. Close, hard to score 10-9 rounds are in the minority, just in well matched fights. So you'd get a LOOOOOOOT of 10-8 rounds.



Black

[BrutalBodyShots]

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ROLLDEEP Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:

Fitz Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:The new WBA scoring system would not make it harder for any kind of boxer to win fights than the current one thats already used. It would just make margins closer & possibly prevent boxers from coasting.

I'm all for even 10-10 rounds & having championship fights have an odd amount of rounds weather that be 13 or 15 rounds.

Yes it would. blackbelt has already shown why. Maybe not for every fight, but it does leave that scenario for a certain fighter.

By the same token a brawler, pressure fighter, high work rate fighter would still have the same oppotunity they do now to steal rounds (big or small) than the new WBA scoring system. 'boxers' would not be in any more favor in the new system. There will still be judges around who still look for aggression, high work rate, heavier or cleaner shots.

Only time is when it may favor a 'boxer' (..or any superior opponent) is if they are coasting & find themselves in a situation where they all of a sudden need to put thier foot down on the pedal. But that comes back to why this scoring system may work (which also comes down to good judging). It will not make the margins of the final scorecards wider, but closer & may prevent fighters from coasting.

But generally, when a pure boxer wins a round, they win it in dominant fashion.



When a slugger wins a round, they almost take as many shots as they give and win it on heart and power.



Therefore, all the dominant rounds would go in the boxer's favour. For a slugger to have a dominant round he'd have to be teeing off on the guy.



Say goodbye to all your Jake LaMottas, Arturo Gattis, Carl Frochs and the other guys who keep the fight game alive. They'd be losing plenty of decisions they'd be winning with today's scoring.





Black

Black, I don't get your rationale.

If a brawler is going to lose more rounds than he wins in a fight, he's going to lose. It doesn't matter if he loses 7 rounds 10-9, loses 7 rounds 10-8 or loses 7 rounds 10-1. Regardless he's going to lose.

That said, if he's going to KO his opponent within 12 rounds, the score isn't relevant as score cards go out the window in the event of a KO.

Therefore in the case of the brawler, what does a different scoring system matter?

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black




Shoot, Roll forgot to log out!!! Sorry

Nope you are incorrect again in wrongly assuming that boxers by default get 10-8 rounds and brawlers get 10-9 rounds for rounds they win.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up or making that assumption.

Brawler wins 7 rounds, boxer wins 5. If they both CLEARLY win all of their rounds the final score would be 110-106 for the brawler under my scoring system, or 115-113 under the traditional system. The scoring system doesn't matter if all of the rounds are won in clear fashion (that is of similar magnitude).

Now, maybe the brawler wins 7 rounds to 5 and of his 7 rounds he wins 4 clearly and 3 slightly. Then the boxer out of his 5 rounds wins 3 clearly and 2 slightly. The final score would be 112-109 for the brawler where under the traditional system it would still be 115-113.

OK, let's switch it and say the BOXER wins close rounds and the BRAWLER win dominant rounds.


You still get the guy who won the most rounds losing the fight, which I can't stomach.


Also, the judges can't currently make their mind up who won a round, let alone by what margins. What would constitute a dominant round? Saaaaay...most of the Martinez-Chavez rounds? Froch-Ward rounds? Were most of Donaire's rounds the weekend 10-8's?


Where does the line between 10-9 and 10-8 sit? Because for my mind, most rounds in boxing are fairly clear and dominant. Think of all the rounds you've watched, from prospects to 6 rounders to 10 rounders to world title fights. Most fights are one-sided. Close, hard to score 10-9 rounds are in the minority, just in well matched fights. So you'd get a LOOOOOOOT of 10-8 rounds.



Black

Well that's where we differ. You can't stomach a guy that wins more rounds losing the fight. I don't give a shit about rounds.

I don't care if a fight is fought on even terms for 9 rounds, except one guy barely eeks out all 9... but if he gets brutally battered for the final 3 rounds, beaten pillar to post, is holding on for dear life, looks like he's going to be stopped on several occasions by the ref and is literally holding on as the bell sounds to end the fight... fuck scores, that motherfucker just lost. Score cards though will show a nice 117-111 win for the guy that just got his ass handed to him and will probably spend a week in the hospital.

That's the shit I can't stomach. I guess we differ on that, which is all good.

I disagree with your point that most rounds are easy to score except for in well matched fights. I think there are a lot of difficult rounds to score. Different judges looking at different things. And make up calls, I think that's the biggest issue with our current system.

I'll reference the Trinidad/DLH fight again. With the current system you have judges that score a bunch of rounds for one guy... 10-9, 10-9, 10-9 and then after a few rounds they score for the other guy 10-9 even though they don't REALLY think he deserves the round. That BS call creates a 2 point swing in the fight. Instead of one guys score going UP a point it goes DOWN a point with respect to the other guy. A 2 point swing based on a judges BS make up call.

If you have judges scoring a round 10-8 vs 10-9 though... sure 2 may score the round 10-8 thinking it was a super clear round and the third judge may only have it 10-9 thinking it was a closer round. However their differing scores only constitute a 1 point difference, not a 2 point difference. I feel like scoring reform would help eliminate make up calls and bullshit rounds from judges, again yielding score cards that are more indicative of what went on in the ring which, in a close fight, could mean the difference of who wins it.

[blackbelt2003]

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ROLLDEEP Wrote:

BrutalBodyShots Wrote:

blackbelt2003 Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:

Fitz Wrote:

ViperSniper Wrote:The new WBA scoring system would not make it harder for any kind of boxer to win fights than the current one thats already used. It would just make margins closer & possibly prevent boxers from coasting.

I'm all for even 10-10 rounds & having championship fights have an odd amount of rounds weather that be 13 or 15 rounds.

Yes it would. blackbelt has already shown why. Maybe not for every fight, but it does leave that scenario for a certain fighter.

By the same token a brawler, pressure fighter, high work rate fighter would still have the same oppotunity they do now to steal rounds (big or small) than the new WBA scoring system. 'boxers' would not be in any more favor in the new system. There will still be judges around who still look for aggression, high work rate, heavier or cleaner shots.

Only time is when it may favor a 'boxer' (..or any superior opponent) is if they are coasting & find themselves in a situation where they all of a sudden need to put thier foot down on the pedal. But that comes back to why this scoring system may work (which also comes down to good judging). It will not make the margins of the final scorecards wider, but closer & may prevent fighters from coasting.

But generally, when a pure boxer wins a round, they win it in dominant fashion.



When a slugger wins a round, they almost take as many shots as they give and win it on heart and power.



Therefore, all the dominant rounds would go in the boxer's favour. For a slugger to have a dominant round he'd have to be teeing off on the guy.



Say goodbye to all your Jake LaMottas, Arturo Gattis, Carl Frochs and the other guys who keep the fight game alive. They'd be losing plenty of decisions they'd be winning with today's scoring.





Black

Black, I don't get your rationale.

If a brawler is going to lose more rounds than he wins in a fight, he's going to lose. It doesn't matter if he loses 7 rounds 10-9, loses 7 rounds 10-8 or loses 7 rounds 10-1. Regardless he's going to lose.

That said, if he's going to KO his opponent within 12 rounds, the score isn't relevant as score cards go out the window in the event of a KO.

Therefore in the case of the brawler, what does a different scoring system matter?

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black

What if the brawler wins seven rounds and the boxer wins five?


Under your scoring the boxer would get the decision as his rounds were clearer than the brawler, so he'd be getting 10-8 rounds and the brawler 10-9. Therefore the guy who won the most rounds would lose the fight.




Black




Shoot, Roll forgot to log out!!! Sorry

Nope you are incorrect again in wrongly assuming that boxers by default get 10-8 rounds and brawlers get 10-9 rounds for rounds they win.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up or making that assumption.

Brawler wins 7 rounds, boxer wins 5. If they both CLEARLY win all of their rounds the final score would be 110-106 for the brawler under my scoring system, or 115-113 under the traditional system. The scoring system doesn't matter if all of the rounds are won in clear fashion (that is of similar magnitude).

Now, maybe the brawler wins 7 rounds to 5 and of his 7 rounds he wins 4 clearly and 3 slightly. Then the boxer out of his 5 rounds wins 3 clearly and 2 slightly. The final score would be 112-109 for the brawler where under the traditional system it would still be 115-113.

OK, let's switch it and say the BOXER wins close rounds and the BRAWLER win dominant rounds.


You still get the guy who won the most rounds losing the fight, which I can't stomach.


Also, the judges can't currently make their mind up who won a round, let alone by what margins. What would constitute a dominant round? Saaaaay...most of the Martinez-Chavez rounds? Froch-Ward rounds? Were most of Donaire's rounds the weekend 10-8's?


Where does the line between 10-9 and 10-8 sit? Because for my mind, most rounds in boxing are fairly clear and dominant. Think of all the rounds you've watched, from prospects to 6 rounders to 10 rounders to world title fights. Most fights are one-sided. Close, hard to score 10-9 rounds are in the minority, just in well matched fights. So you'd get a LOOOOOOOT of 10-8 rounds.



Black

Well that's where we differ. You can't stomach a guy that wins more rounds losing the fight. I don't give a shit about rounds.

I don't care if a fight is fought on even terms for 9 rounds, except one guy barely eeks out all 9... but if he gets brutally battered for the final 3 rounds, beaten pillar to post, is holding on for dear life, looks like he's going to be stopped on several occasions by the ref and is literally holding on as the bell sounds to end the fight... fuck scores, that motherfucker just lost. Score cards though will show a nice 117-111 win for the guy that just got his ass handed to him and will probably spend a week in the hospital.

That's the shit I can't stomach. I guess we differ on that, which is all good.

I disagree with your point that most rounds are easy to score except for in well matched fights. I think there are a lot of difficult rounds to score. Different judges looking at different things. And make up calls, I think that's the biggest issue with our current system.

I'll reference the Trinidad/DLH fight again. With the current system you have judges that score a bunch of rounds for one guy... 10-9, 10-9, 10-9 and then after a few rounds they score for the other guy 10-9 even though they don't REALLY think he deserves the round. That BS call creates a 2 point swing in the fight. Instead of one guys score going UP a point it goes DOWN a point with respect to the other guy. A 2 point swing based on a judges BS make up call.

If you have judges scoring a round 10-8 vs 10-9 though... sure 2 may score the round 10-8 thinking it was a super clear round and the third judge may only have it 10-9 thinking it was a closer round. However their differing scores only constitute a 1 point difference, not a 2 point difference. I feel like scoring reform would help eliminate make up calls and bullshit rounds from judges, again yielding score cards that are more indicative of what went on in the ring which, in a close fight, could mean the difference of who wins it.

All good brother...lol, we're not gonna convince each other, but I'm sure we can see each other's view points. For me, I like the round-by-round system. You prefer to see a fight in it's entirety.

Horses for courses, man!





Black