Interesting article here:

http://wbcboxing.com/wbcVersEng/index.php?...dbd49at2359cd76

I see the issues with the 10-point must system, and agree that their should be more liberal usage of 10-8 rounds. Right now, there is very little credit given to what makes the difference between a 10-9 round dominated by a fighter, and a close 10-9 round. I would even like to see even rounds at 10-10 brought back.

I agree that some form of computer system is needed, because too many master score-sheets look like shit.

I disagree with the judges needing to push buttons, which rely's on the judges eyesight and physical coordination to do so. This has failed in Olympic boxing, so how would it be better in pro-boxing?

Over time, I may be communicating with the WBC about the proposed pluses and minuses of this system. I do think a backup pencil and paper system would still be needed by the local commission and sanctioning body in the event of computer failure.

Thoughts and feedback? The WBC will plan to introduce ideas for this system this fall at the annual convention in Mexico this year.

Jack

i've been saying this for years. working proto-types are not hard to produce.

If they're more than likely going to use a senile motherfucker to enforce it, then what's the point?

this isnt football, there doesnt need to be new technology involved, i just think 10-8 rounds should be more liberal as you said, and rounds that are draws. but thats it. also maybe a clear definition of how scoring works, as in explaining what effective aggression, defense etc etc are to the public and to actual judges.

imo...the problem with scoring is that it takes a trained eye to understand what's happening. slips, blocks etc...are very difficult to see in real time and they end up getting scored as landed blows.

That's an issue too. Senior Jose and some of these judges are in, or approaching their 80's. No matter what happens with this system, the old people endorsing this aren't going to be around much longer. The experimentation, pluses and minuses of this system should be studied by newer officials involved in the game. The senior powers that be are just getting too old. They aren't even going to be around long enough to work with the system. And it can take years, (even as Jose sort of admits in his article) to get the commissions to accept change.

Just to clarify when I said myself that some sort of computer system was needed. I DON'T mean change the traditional 10-point must scoring system with a computer button pushing system. I mean:

1.) Allow more liberal use as to lesser points for losers of rounds. I agree with Jose here, get some justice as to you have 10 points to play with. Use them. Close rounds won by a hair, should be 10-9, dominate rounds should be 10-8 even without a knockdown. Rounds dominated with knockdowns should be 10-7, and if a round is even, make it 10-10. US jurisdictions and the Association of Boxing Commissions treat even rounds like cancer. Why are even rounds so bad?

2.) Have the commission/sanctioning body representative feed the traditional 10-point must scoring master scoresheets into a computer so that the master-scoresheet can look more professional and organized.

3.) Allow the use of more international officials in US jurisdictions for World Title Fights. Nevada needs to open its eyes to the use of more qualified world officials. The sanctioning bodies will usually submit a list of 5-7 officials to the state commission. Nevada always insists on its own referee and at least two judges in most cases. This needs to change. Nevada officials may be the best according to Nevada, but are they the best in terms of World Championship experience? You go with Nevada, you have a Vegas gambling community where local judges may be more inclined to favor a promoter's star fighter who has connections to a promoter who does business in Nevada. The use of more international judges and refs in Nevada boxing matches who are LESS likely to have a vested interest in a promoter's star fighter can help.

4.) Texas seems to have the same level of arrogance with regard to the appointment of its officials. Although credit to Nevada for having strict drug testing policies. Texas almost isn't a boxing commission. ( No drug testing mandates, violation of ABC rules...ect.) It's the house of boxing owned and manipulated by "Daddy" Dickie "The Dick" Cole and his equally conceited son Lawrence Cole. Keeping it all in the family, and with the family in charge, and with the money that the Cole's have, who's gonna stop them from saying no? There is no oversight system of checks and balances giving the Cole's the power to do what they want, when they want for fights in Texas. That is one of boxing's biggest problems.

Jack

I've thought about this for years. It's a tricky situation because ultimately, it still relies on the intergrity of the judges.
My options:
1. Have ringside judges announce their initial "unofficial scores" immediately after the fight. Then, take them to an undisclosed location with a committee immediately after, have them rewatch the fight, tally the scores. Almost like the NFL combine when they run the 40.

or

2. Have 5 judges. 1 for each side of the ring and 1 watching TV with no commentary.


Other suggestion: Have Compubox go back and study the footage and make the more accurate punch counts available to the public.

They had their first experiment with the Computer Ringside Scoring in a WBC Sanctioned Fight in Mexico:

http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/technology...-scoring-142564

Jack

A lot of times, I , like many others, don't agree with ideas that the WBC has, but here Jose Suliman talks about the proposed computer ringside scoring, the overuse of 10-9 rounds, and other interesting elements that I have written about as well:

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articl...fix-bad-judging

Jack