Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: WBA To Experiment with Half-Point System
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Jack 1000
The WBA at its recent convention in China is going to be experimenting with a fractional version of the 10-point must system, similar to what the British Boxing Board of Control used up until the mid 90's. This will only be for regional belts. Also they are trying 9 and 11 round fights for two minor league Latin American Belts. World Championship fights will remain at 12 rounds with the customary 10-point must system. I am also pretty certain that the Association of Boxing Commissions would have to approve of the changes in the 35 States under ABC jurisdiction.

Fight news has a story here:

http://www.fightnews.com/wba18.htm

It's better than the WBC experimental Open Scoring System. I normally hate these types of changes, but look at the present 10-point must system. All rounds without a knockdown or total domination are scored 10-9. A one round change by any of the three officials can mean a FOUR POINT disparity on the scorecards. Could this help, or hurt the present scoring system?

This is the closest thing to what I was saying about encouraging more even rounds. If you have two many dominate rounds 10-8 without a knockdown, it could create a scenario where the losing fighter can't come back without a knockdown or TKO.

In other news, the WBA will experiment with 9 round fights for Latin-American Federation bouts and 11 round fights for Latin-American Federation titles. This move is being tried to see if it can reduce draws and the often controversial decisions that occur because of draws. While odd numbered rounds may help reduce the effects of some draws, I find this approach too gimmicky. W.9 and W. 11 doesn't look right on a record. In the 80's, some USBA title fights had overtime rounds, such as a thirteen round if the scoring after 12 was a draw. The judges were instructed that they had to pick a winner in the 13th round. I recall a fight in Ohio where the State Commission still used it, after the IBF had abandoned the rule. A winner was given in round 13 after the cards showed a draw. However, the IBF was forced to nullify the overtime round and reinstated the original draw verdict. What do you think about overtime rounds in boxing in the event of draws? With the stipulation that the judges must pick a winner in the overtime round?

Jack
AussieLad
Half point scoring is insanity. It just adds yet another complication to the convoluted and clouded scoring boxing currently enjoys

the 13th round is the obvious answer for fights that end in a draw. other sports have overtime to prevent draws, why not boxing

having an odd number of rounds is no insurance against draw. A knockdown in one round that is scored a 10-8 can easily put a draw back on the cards, and an extra 12th round would then be needed to seperate the winner from the loser
BrutalBodyShots
I like the idea of half point rounds in theory, but think the fractions should stay out of it. Kind of like my proposition in multiple other threads I think 10-8 rounds should just be much more common. 10-9 verses 10-9.5 sounds great, but is tougher to tally up and sounds stupid if someone wins a fight 116.5 - 111.5 or some crap. It would make for more accurate decisions IMO, but along with a few drawbacks.

Nobudius
Think this goes against the old theory of Keep It Simple Stupid.

How about they just get judges/refs that have had thorough background checks, with some credible experience, rather than some Joe Schmos?
ROLL DEEP
Half points? Man.....they need to simplify the scoring, not make it harder for the general public.

As for having an extra round in the event of a draw...not sure, can't see it being a bad thing though. It would sure make some VERY entertaining rounds, lol.
BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE(Nobudius @ Oct 14 2007, 11:28 PM) [snapback]361315[/snapback]
Think this goes against the old theory of Keep It Simple Stupid.

How about they just get judges/refs that have had thorough background checks, with some credible experience, rather than some Joe Schmos?


Most of the judges scoring big fights today are guys that I've seen a ton of times in the past (experienced) and these are the same guys that have had sketchy calls in the past. I don't think experience is all that much of a factor when you have a 80 year old guy that's been scoring for 3/4 of his life but turns out a horrible card yet Julie Ledderman who's less than half his age and much less "experienced" is usually right on point.

The problem with scoring boxing is very simple. 99% of the rounds scored in boxing result in a 10-9 score. 99% of the rounds in boxing do not look the same, so they shouldn't result in the same score. The fact that a round today that is BARELY won by a guy and a round that is DOMINATED by a guy result in the exact same score (10-9) just asks for bogus scorecards.

Nobudius
QUOTE(BrutalBodyShots @ Oct 15 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]361362[/snapback]
Most of the judges scoring big fights today are guys that I've seen a ton of times in the past (experienced) and these are the same guys that have had sketchy calls in the past. I don't think experience is all that much of a factor when you have a 80 year old guy that's been scoring for 3/4 of his life but turns out a horrible card yet Julie Ledderman who's less than half his age and much less "experienced" is usually right on point.

The problem with scoring boxing is very simple. 99% of the rounds scored in boxing result in a 10-9 score. 99% of the rounds in boxing do not look the same, so they shouldn't result in the same score. The fact that a round today that is BARELY won by a guy and a round that is DOMINATED by a guy result in the exact same score (10-9) just asks for bogus scorecards.


I hear ya.

Probably said what I wanted, but it didn't come out right by..."credible".

What about the overall concept of even rounds?
BrutalBodyShots
Even rounds should be used if the judge honestly doesn't know who to give the round to. If they DON'T give an even round it just further screws up the current system... because in that case you'd have a fighter getting a 10-9 round and receiving the same score as a fighter being DOMINATED for 3 minutes without a knockdown also receiving a 10-9 score.

So dumb the fight down to 2 rounds to see how stupid the current system is.

Round 1: Even, can't decide who won.

Round 2: Fighter A dominates Fighter B and rocks him several times but does not get a knockdown.

Say a judge gives Fighter B the first round, 10-9 and then in round 2 he would give Fighter A the round, 10-9.

Final score? 19-19 draw. Does the above sound like it was a draw?


If the even round was used Fighter A would have won 20-19, a score that makes sense.

If my proposed use of 10-8 rounds in dominant rounds was used, even if Fighter B was given the first round 10-9 he would have lost the second round 10-8, so the right man still gets the nod with a 19-18 score.

Either way, using more even (10-10) rounds or more 10-8 rounds results in a fighter winning a close fight verses an even fight that when watched would seem anything but even. Again, this example is dumbed down to 2 rounds; over the course of 12 rounds it would make the scoring MUCH more accurate.


AussieLad
I dunno about the 10 - 8 scoring for dominating a round without a knockdown. In theory its great but in practice...

I mean in tennis, should a dominating 6-1 set be worth more than a hard fought 7-5 set? They are equal apportionments in scoring, like each 3 minute round. Thats the way the sport is scored, get over it. As far as boxing is concerned, unless you score a knockdown to punctuate your round, then its just too bad.

The problem i have is that is too subjective as to what constitutes dominating. Its a grey line where one guy has a very good 10 - 9 round or a 10 - 8 round. Thats why the automatic 10 - 8 round for a knockdown removes subjectivity from the equation. What i see happening is one judge scoring a 10 - 8 round for "dominating", the other 2 scoring 10 - 9's, and controversy exploding as to why the scoring is suddenly even more inconsistent than it was before. Fights fixed... corruption... Don King... yadda yadda yadda... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If half rounds are added, and these subjective 10 - 8 rounds with no knockdowns are actually regularly used, it may just be easier to say to hell with scoring rounds at all. Just go out there and fight non stop for 36 minutes and leave it in the hands of the judges.

Hey, at least that way you dont have to worry about open scoring spoiling the surprise verdict. Open scoring in my opinion is much less stupid than these half points systems
BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE(AussieLad @ Oct 18 2007, 04:02 AM) [snapback]361549[/snapback]
The problem i have is that is too subjective as to what constitutes dominating. Its a grey line where one guy has a very good 10 - 9 round or a 10 - 8 round. Thats why the automatic 10 - 8 round for a knockdown removes subjectivity from the equation. What i see happening is one judge scoring a 10 - 8 round for "dominating", the other 2 scoring 10 - 9's, and controversy exploding as to why the scoring is suddenly even more inconsistent than it was before. Fights fixed... corruption... Don King... yadda yadda yadda... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


I don't think there's any more subjectivity in scoring a 10-8 round for a dominant round than there is with judges currently scoring a 10-8 round for a dominant round without a knockdown or 10-10 rounds. It would just be encouraging scores other than 10-9 for your typical round.

I really don't see a problem with it. So what if two judges score the round 10-9 and one 10-8. Point is all 3 got the correct winner in the round and one felt it was dominant while the other two just thought he won the round. There could potentially be a round later in the fight where the same three judges score the round with two 10-8's and one 10-9, so in the end the law of averages would just even it all out. Bottom line is that the fighter that is winning the rounds much more clearly is getting credit for doing so as opposed to just eeking the round out - and in the end that fighter should be credited with the decision that would have otherwise ended in a draw.

I don't really know much about tennis scoring, but if there are 5 sets and one guy wins two sets 6-1 and the other wins 3 sets 7-5 the first guy actually won 27 games while the second only won 23 games. It would seem to me that the first guy winning more games would indicate that he's the overall better player, but again I know nothing about tennis. It would be like if a 12 round fight was divided into 4 "sets" of 3 rounds apiece. If Fighter A swept rounds 1-3 and 4-6 he wins two "sets" but all 6 rounds... Fighter B wins 2 of 3 rounds in the last two "sets" and wins those two sets... so in "sets" the fight is a draw, but in rounds it's 8-4 or 116-112 for Fighter A. The overal feeling would be that Fighter A won, as I would assume the overall feeling would be that the first tennis player having won 27 games probably won. That's just my take.

Col Reb
I love the overtime round idea. Just curious, why did they do away with 15 round fights?
Jack 1000
QUOTE(Col Reb @ Oct 19 2007, 12:22 PM) [snapback]361620[/snapback]
I love the overtime round idea. Just curious, why did they do away with 15 round fights?


After the death Duek-Koo-Kim in 1982 against Ray Mancini the WBC reduced the number of championship rounds in title fights from 15 rounds to 12 in January of 1983 because they had been studying the adverse effects of the longer distance going back to Ali-Frazier III. The WBC's medical advisory board found that after the 12th round, many boxes had stamina, coordination problems, and observable fatigue. Jose Sulaiman said in interviews that the doctors who did this study throughout the United States, and others in England agreed with thse findings as well that "it was wrong to push a boxer over the limited of human endurance." They found that more serious injuries were likely to occur in the later rounds of a fight when a boxer's energy became depleted. Suliman has said that Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson supported this change as did the California State Athletic Commission and the British Boxing Board of Control who embraced it.

Critics at the time said that Suliman acted more out of compassion than logic. That a top referee should know when to stop a fight whether it be the 1st, 12th, or 15th round. This was a MAJOR change for boxing and took many years for traditionalists and historians to accept it. At the time of the change, the WBA and IBF still did 15-round bouts and an agreement was made with the WBC that unified champions would have the lead sanctioning body "alternate" the distance to use concerning mandatory defenses. Michael Spinks, Marvin Hagler, and Mike Tyson all had to deal with this distance rotation. It got too confusing so in November 1987 the WBA adopted the 12 round distance with the IBF doing the same in September 1988.

The Association of Boxing Commissions solidified the 12 round distance for it's unified rules in October 1997 for all title fights under their jurisdiction in the United States. For better or worse, depending on one's perspective, the 15-round championship fight is defunct. There is no way that it will be brought back because boxing is MUCH TOO SAFETY CONSCIENCE today for that to happen. All it would take would be one fighter, especially well-known to get hurt or killed if in the 13th-15th round if the old system were brought back, and our sport would never hear the end of it. And it wasn't JUST becomes of Kim's death. The change just would have happened later rather than sooner had he lived.

Jack
Jack 1000
UPDATE:

Fightnews reports that the WBC will also support the change. But there are no specifics as to how or in what fights this will be applied. As most USA jurisdictions have Unified Rules under the conventional 10-point must scoring, it may be awhile before we see this change in the USA. England, which used this system for years, rejected it about 10 years ago.

Anyway, here are some ADVANTAGES to half point scoring on the 10 point must system:

I like this WAY better than the experimental open scoring. The positives of the half-point round are:

1.) It reflects a close round. There are two many close rounds AND dominate rounds without knockdowns that are scored 10-9 under the current system.

2.) It will help eliminate draws. Not all draws are bad, but many are blatant cop-outs to protect the hometown guy or give him an advantage.

3.) Can rounds still be scored 10-10 under the new half-point system? If so, this really gives more leeway to the judges in scoring. But 10-10 rounds can be overdone resulting in more draws so a 10-9.5 round would be the "next best thing."

4.) It may take a long time if ever for this new system to get introduced into the USA. There are still some negatives with it. For studying it in the USA, that's up to the Association of Boxing Commissions and until an approval or denial is made by them, the local boxing commission. Only Arkansas approved the WBC's 4th and 8th round optional Open Scoring in the states, which was quickly voted down by the ABC by what I believe was a 33-1 vote. Only Arkansas agreed with Open Scoring.

5.) USA jurisdictions hate 10-10 rounds, so if you want less draws, this half-point system might be a good thing.

6.) It is too easy to get a draw with 6-6 rounds and 10-9 scoring now, whether that draw is deserved or not. Most people both boxing fans and historians hate draws. The question is, will judges be unbiased by giving a 10-9.5 round to the right fighter? Or how much bias could be eliminated under the half-point system?

7.) I think that there should be more leeway in the 10-point must system as it is, and this will help judges give more leeway in scoring the fights.

Jack
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.