Let us know your thoughts on this. Could the boxing scoring system be improved?
This clip was taken from our latest Watch & Score Livestream.
Livestreams Playlist: • Live Streams
Subscribe and join us for future Watch & Score sessions.
Visit fight-score.com to create detailed scorecards using our unique system.
Follow us on X: /fight_scores
Follow Alex Vega on X: /_zorrodelavega
Follow 86Boxing on X: /86boxing
To expand on these points: I think the main issue is that there are 10 points available but we've got to a state where it's impossible to utilise them. Somewhere along the lines it became the norm to award only a 10-9 round, until there are knockdowns then start deducting more. But how's this for a comparison: Round 1 fighter A is landing plenty of scoring shots, he's wobbled a few times and fighter B is having to hold. He doesn't go down. 99% of the time this would be a 10-9 round, where it could probably be a 10-8 round. Round 2 it's much closer. A cagey round, nothing much happening. But then after a bit of tangled feet, fighter B lands a pushing jab, and fighter A slightly off balance touches down. He's not at all hurt, it's a balance thing. But It's ruled a knockdown. 8-10 to fighter B. So now after 2 rounds, the dominating fighter from round 1, and a very close round 2 is actually down on the points when that isn't actually the reality of the fight.
The interesting thing about our round winning margin metric is this equates to displaying how close or wide a round is, a so determines a more true reflection of each round and it wouldn't be strangled by the developed limitations of the 10 points system we see that exists. While this winning margin metric does favour harder hitting punchers, more likely to have their opponents in trouble and so more likely to win by wider margins I think it reflects how fights are actually going. A boxer with more limited power relies on outboxing their opponent, and so could still win a clear, on a wide margin if you use the % slider in a logical, reasoned and most importantly consistent way.
Yes, your example is why I try to think of improvements to a round scoring system. To use an MMA example (because 3 rounds is easier), many times what happens is Fighter A gets the nod in two of the rounds which were so close nobody is sure who won, and Fighter B clearly wins the other round (but doesn't get a 10-8), so Fighter A wins the fight even though with an overall (not rounds-based) fight score Fighter B would have won.
@@mevrabel2 Yeah makes sense.
Here's fair within the 10 point must system: Flip a coin and decide who gets heads and tails. The guy who gets heads gets the first close round and then the other guy gets the next close round et cetera
Ha! Maybe this is what some judges do, given some of the wild scores we get!
I think round scoring is flawed (especially in MMA with far fewer rounds) and would prefer an overall score at the end of the fight: Judges simply give the win to Fighter A or B without any score. (Or call it a draw.)
But they need to come to that decision in some way? Surely that leads to even more risk of judges simply deciding on the wrong winner, without having to do any explanations as to their reasoning behind it. The 10 points system, in a way doesn't need explanations either, but this is where our scoring system tries to add that part in with the need to show how close rounds were with the % slider and the need to select a valid reason why the round was won. This adds some transparency and effectively as a judge, it's a snapshot of their mindset in that moment to explain what fight they are seeing.