Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Improvements to the 10-Point Must Scoring System
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Jack 1000
Greetings,

I am interested in collecting community input for refinement of boxing's traditional 10-point must scoring system. Approximately for the past 50 years, this system, replacing the rounds system continues to assign 10 points to the winner of a round and 9 points (or fewer) to the loser of a round. Even rounds are scored 10-10, but are often frowned upon, especially by US Boxing Commissions.

My take is that there is too many 10-9 rounds given out, when the significance of what constitutes a 10-9 round can be ambiguous. Consider the following:

Most judges will commit to scoring a round 10-9 if there are no knockdowns, even if one boxer is dominating the round. In this case, we have dominant rounds without knockdowns being scored 10-9.

Most judges will also score close rounds 10-9 even if they have trouble picking a winner of the round. A 10-9 vote in the cases of both example #1 and example #2 does not tell us just how close or not close the round is. No knockdown and the boxer isn't kicking the crap out of his opponent it's almost always scored as a 10-9 round. How is this justice with our current scoring system?

And why are most US commissions so reluctant to assign 10-10 rounds? Other international countries have no problem with it, but in many USA jurisdictions, the scoring of a round 10-10 is some sort of boxing cancer? Why. If there is near impossible to pick a winner of a round, why is it bad to score it even?

Consider a more liberal use of the 10-point must system, which the WBC tried in the late 80's and may go back to in the future:

  • A close round, where the judge can't pick a winner gets a 10-10 vote.
  • A round barely won gets a 10-9 vote.
  • A round dominated by a boxer gets a 10-8 vote without a knockdown.
  • A round dominated by a boxer with a knockdown gets a 10-7 round. The losing boxer would have to rally after getting knockdown to get a 10-8 round.
  • Each time a losing boxer is knocked down in the same round he starts with 7 points and goes down from there.


Now a question that I have? Should the strength of a knockdown such as a flash knockdown or power punch knockdown make a difference in the scoring of that round?

Jack
Slumpage
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Aug 9 2012, 01:08 PM) *
Greetings,

I am interested in collecting community input for refinement of boxing's traditional 10-point must scoring system. Approximately for the past 50 years, this system, replacing the rounds system continues to assign 10 points to the winner of a round and 9 points (or fewer) to the loser of a round. Even rounds are scored 10-10, but are often frowned upon, especially by US Boxing Commissions.

My take is that there is too many 10-9 rounds given out, when the significance of what constitutes a 10-9 round can be ambiguous. Consider the following:

Most judges will commit to scoring a round 10-9 if there are no knockdowns, even if one boxer is dominating the round. In this case, we have dominant rounds without knockdowns being scored 10-9.

Most judges will also score close rounds 10-9 even if they have trouble picking a winner of the round. A 10-9 vote in the cases of both example #1 and example #2 does not tell us just how close or not close the round is. No knockdown and the boxer isn't kicking the crap out of his opponent it's almost always scored as a 10-9 round. How is this justice with our current scoring system?

And why are most US commissions so reluctant to assign 10-10 rounds? Other international countries have no problem with it, but in many USA jurisdictions, the scoring of a round 10-10 is some sort of boxing cancer? Why. If there is near impossible to pick a winner of a round, why is it bad to score it even?

Consider a more liberal use of the 10-point must system, which the WBC tried in the late 80's and may go back to in the future:

  • A close round, where the judge can't pick a winner gets a 10-10 vote.
  • A round barely won gets a 10-9 vote.
  • A round dominated by a boxer gets a 10-8 vote without a knockdown.
  • A round dominated by a boxer with a knockdown gets a 10-7 round. The losing boxer would have to rally after getting knockdown to get a 10-8 round.
  • Each time a losing boxer is knocked down in the same round he starts with 7 points and goes down from there.


Now a question that I have? Should the strength of a knockdown such as a flash knockdown or power punch knockdown make a difference in the scoring of that round?

Jack


I agree with most of what your saying here. However in fights with multiple knockdowns within a round such as JMM vs Pac 1, he'd be down 10-5 in the 1st round. That's an almost impossible deficit to overcome if he fails to score a knockdown himself. I remember thinking at the time I'd score it a 10-7 instead of 10-6 because I felt if he manages to come back from that horrendous 1st round, he'd need to be in contention points wise for it to be fair. I had a look on that FightJudge website to get a quick lil rundown on how a pro fight is scored on the 10pt Must system. Saw this...

The basic scoring concepts are:

- Round ends, no clear winner 10-10 (Rare) <--- Is it though? I mean a "clear" winner?
- Close round/Winning of the round by effective boxing – 10-9
- One knockdown and a winning of the round – 10-8
- No knockdowns, but a clear dominating winning of the round – 10-8
- Two knockdowns – 10-7 - One knockdown and one point deduction to the same boxer – 10-8 (minus 1) = 10-7
- More than two knockdowns – 10-6
- Two knockdowns and one point deduction – 10-7 (minus 1) = 10-6

I think I prefer the 'more than two knockdowns being a 10-6' over your suggestion of going from 10-7 down a point per KD.


I also noticed, "Judges should avoid scoring a round even. (Complete concentration and application of the scoring criteria will allow Judges to pick the winner of each round.)"


Now this had me thinking, because many a time I've had a difficult time deciding on a "clear" winner of a round. An that's even after hearing punch stats etc. In those instance I score a 10-10. Sometimes its due to both guys being so inactive or ineffective, no one won clear. Other times it's a back and forth round where once again, no clear winner. However I may just not be a competent enough judge to split the fighters. Then I thought, most ringside officials seem to show a degree of incompetence too. So in a situation where they are encouraged/forced to pick a winner of a close round I swear they just guess or pick the favourite/champ/hometown guy. I say encourage the scoring of even rounds, that way we can see which judges have difficulty in judging rounds and send for training, eye tests or whatever..

In answer to your question about the scoring of a flash/heavy knockdown. I say if its a flash knockdown, then its usually a result of the dropped guy being sloppy. So the point penalization is fair. With a heavy knockdown (like every time Khan gets dropped) I say its up to the guy who scored the knockdown to take advantage of his dazed foe and gain any extra points advantage past the one he gets for a knockdown by scoring another knockdown or just simply ending it. That way it gives the fighter knocked down heavily a chance to recover and stay in the fight points wise if he does indeed survive the round without further knockdowns.
checkleft
Most judges don't go below 10-7 on a given round. But I don't think the issue is with the scoring system I think its with the judging. As jack said each judges opinion on how someone wins a round is ambiguous and it all just depends on what the judge is looking for.

For one I don't like how judges seem to score rounds for volume punching fighters even though punches are either missing or ineffective (for example Alexander vs kotelnik or pac vs marquez)
checkleft
Looks like this scoring system is going to be implemented in Olympic boxing now.

http://m.espn.go.com/extra/olympics/story?storyId=8251112
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.