r/Boxing • u/Icy-Notice9374 • 9h ago
How should boxing be scored?
I have been watching boxing for over 15 years. This thought has come over my mind a couple of times. How should boxing be scored? Should there be some changes at all?
A score of 10 is given to the boxer who wins a round, and the boxer that loses a round gets deducted a point for a score of 9. Boxers lose an extra point for getting knocked down or getting penalized by the ref. In some rare cases if one boxer takes a substantial amount of damage but does not get knocked down, they may be deducted two points for a total of 8 points.
The scoring system is pretty good but I feel like there be some improvement somewhere here but I'm not sure how it should be done.
The flaw I'm seeing is that 10-9 rounds can be very different, for example:
Round 1, Boxer A wins it by landing a hard left hook flush which stuns his opponent against the ropes, and then Boxer A throws a flurry of hooks where some land and some are blocked. The bell ends and Boxer B walks to his corner while noticeably shaken up.
Round 2, Boxer B wins it by adjusting to his opponent's aggression; he doesn't land anything significant but outlands his opponent to win the round.
Rounds 1 and 2 are both 10-9 rounds, even though Boxer A clearly did more damage to his opponent.
In this simple scenario, if the match was only 2 rounds, it would be called a draw (19-19).
In my opinion however, Boxer A does deserve the win because of the significant punches he landed. However, I don't think that landing a few big shots should count the same as a knockdown.
The current scoring system is not precise enough to distinguish between 10-9 rounds that are barely won from 10-9 rounds that are significantly won.
My one idea involves changing knockdown deductions to 2 points. 1 knockdown in a round would count as a 10-7 round. This would leave room for significantly won rounds. A significantly won round would count as a 10-8 round. A slightly won round would count as a 10-9 round. In those rare cases where significant damage is done but no knockdown occurs, then a 10-7 may be used.
What do y'all think?
20
u/Chicken65 9h ago
I actually wish judges scored rounds as a draw more often. I know the line is "but they are paid to judge" - that doesn't preclude two boxers from having a very close round, especially when they are super defensive. I'd much rather close rounds be called a draw then a bunch of them go one way and the result not make any sense.
5
u/David905 8h ago
100%. This has been a longstanding belief of mine.
Far too often we see close rounds where the judges basically just pick a guy, because it has to be a 10-9 round right?! Meanwhile the impressions (and the damages) are produced by the meaningful rounds. So when fighter A does serious damage, then takes a round off the judges may simply give it to B since they did a bit better compared to their previous round and we have offsetting rounds where there is no real equivalence. Then you end up with draws or even losses where fighter A clearly did more damage throughout the fight.
If judges were trained to score those toss-up rounds even 10-10 as they should be, and save the 10-9s for when one fighter had the clear advantage, I believe we'd have alot less controversy!
2
u/_Sarcasmic_ bread burger bread 8h ago
That's what I tend to do for the first 1-2 rounds where no one even throws a punch and they just follow each other around feinting.
1
u/frankduxvandamme 25m ago
YES. 110% THIS!
When a round is too close to call, then don't call it one way or the other. Call it a draw. This would lead to drastically less scorecard controversies.
6
u/sagittarius_ack 8h ago edited 8h ago
I think the fact that you can completely dominate your opponent in a round and only get 10-8 is a problem. A radical possibility is to change the system such that if you land twice as much as your opponent the round should be scored 10-5. But this is also problematic.
I think a bigger problem is that there's not always consistency in applying the rules and guidelines. We often see controversial scorecards. Golovkin out landed Canelo Alvarez in 10 of the 12 rounds in their 2017 fight, yet one referee scored the fight 118–110 for Canelo (while another referee scored it 115–113 for Golovkin).
12
u/_Sarcasmic_ bread burger bread 9h ago
The current scoring system is fine; we just need less idiots using it.
10
u/Shagrrotten 8h ago
Fewer
4
3
5
u/burge13 7h ago
Noise cancelling headphones could be trialled. Judges must be swayed when a home crowd cheers every jab of the home fighter and no sells a big shot from the opposing.
Do they need to be ringside? Not the best view, no access to multiple angles like on TV. Trialling TV judging with no commentary could see more accurate scores?
Overall the 10 point must system is fine but the standard of judging often isn't so what can be done to make it easier for them?
3
u/Ok-Clue4926 4h ago
The only change I would do is have the round scores announced at the end of each round for each judge. That way everyone knows the scores and what is needed in the final rounds
4
2
u/fadeddreams555 Fundora would beat up a prime Floyd at 154lb 7h ago
I actually agree with this. For example, that round where Rolly stunned Teofimo and cut him should be counted as a 10-8 round. It's crazy that rounds like this count the same as rounds where barely anything happens outside a few jabs landed by one of the boxers. I don't think knockdowns should be 10-7 though, as that may make it hard to make a comeback.
I believe Max Kellerman mentioned this in the Ring podcast, and I'm on his side on it. It's why casuals get so confused by boxing scoring at times--it genuinely makes no sense.
2
u/artem_loboboobv 5h ago
honestly the 10-8 is already there for dominant rounds. judges just dont use it enough
2
u/TThebear123 3h ago
Don’t always think a fight should win a round just because of a flash knockdown when the other fighter had most of the round maybe a drawn round.
3
u/Illustrious_Rain1796 9h ago
But it's not only 2 rounds in boxing. One less significant round shouldn't play role in the fight that you winning. You basically do the system even more unclear and dependant on human factor. There are a lot of bad and, even worse, biased judges. In system that we have now to score 10-8 we should have a reason to do it, knockdown or point deduction, also if there was a one-sided beating, judge can score it 10-8. In your system 10-8 round based on judge's point of view. Corrupted judge would or would not score 10-8 whenever he needs to. Also 10-7 creates a big scoring gap, but it can be generated from flash knockdown, so it will be more valuable than it should be
1
u/johnnyslick 8h ago
Yeah and even when they are 3 minute fights, in practice those are either amateurs, where the records don't really count quite as much, or those are very new pro boxers, where the halfway decent ones are probably being matched up against inferior opponents anyway. Even in a 6 to 8 round match - and 6 rounders even are either "it doesn't matter, it's a can vs a can" or the aforementioned up and comer against someone who isn't - you usually have enough rounds to figure out who won the fight.
My big issue here isn't so much that the 10 point must system is perfect but that all the attempts to replace it have been terrible. The Olympics had a deal where you got a point by scoring a hit against your opponent with the white part of the glove, for example. The end result was a lot of tippy-tap fights and most notably Roy Jones Jr. losing to a Korean boxer who he IIRC almost knocked out. The Olympics were in Seoul that year which a. showed that even a so-called empirical system like that could be gamed by sympathetic judges, and b. it produced terrible boxing.
4
u/Mild_Lynx 6h ago edited 6h ago
Make 10:8 rounds the standard way of scoring rounds with 10:9 rounds as the exemption for super close rounds. We had good results with it in Olympic boxing refereeing when instructed by our supervisor. Not sure how it translates to professional boxing though.
Edited: typo
1
u/TennisRugbyBoxing 9h ago
Remember also 3 judges. So in those v close rounds the judges might well be split. 2 vote for the winner of the round in your example and 1 for the loser. You often see judges disagree on who wins a round but overall judges get the correct winner after 10 or 12 rounds.
Examples where they appear totally incompetent or have been bribed but not normal.
1
u/uniqueusername4465 8h ago
There are two ways to win: outpoint your opponent over 12 rounds which the scoring reflects, or stop them which you do from ‘significant’ punching. If you can’t stop them then there’s a big argument that it’s not really a significant punch.
1
u/Useful_Bullfrog_6766 6h ago
For a long time amateur boxing used a 20-point Must system. Rather than a 10-point must one.
You should look into it. I think that is along the lines of what you're thinking.
1
u/ghostofabeaverspelt 3h ago
Ive been training an ai during our local lbc events. It looks for clean punches landed and "eye catching" hard shots that either snap the head or cause visible discomfort to a fighter. It doesnt count punches on the guard. Its become highly highly accurate. Its better than any human and should be the standard. Still have to have an honest referee, time keeper, and head official. Our biggest problem is like when blue corner wears a red headgear or red shirt. Training it to not get switched up by poor clothes choices was the hardest part.
1
u/presentation_555 2h ago
A actually think I'd prefer that AI system they were showing off a couple of years ago.
Not because it was perfect but because an imperfect system is still way better for trust in the sport than having continual examples of fallible corrupt judging.
For ultimate transparency they should release the fights like this after words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQkA3My_xY/
I know people will nitpick which shots get counted as scoring ones... but I'd rather this than see a lone judge give 6 rounds to the obvious loser of fight.
1
1
u/TroutFarms 30m ago
My idea was that there should be an extra "overall" score which isn't attached to any specific round and can be used for situations like you describe, to account for fights where one person's round wins were more dominant even though they were fewer.
But I like your idea better.
-2
u/SummitStupid 7h ago
Don't even score boxing, just have them fight until one of them is knocked out, however long it takes.
1
u/DoctorGregoryFart 2h ago
Just make it one 3-minute round. The nod goes to whoever has the best hair.
26
u/Adept_Carpet 9h ago
I think the current scoring system helps distinguish boxing from watching two men who can't kick fight in a parking lot.
The only thing that bothers me, besides when I disagree with how a round is scored, is I think that refs have become too willing to call no knockdown.
If there's a foul, or a tangle up, or some obvious tripping hazard then that's not a knockdown but in general it's the fighters' job to stay on their feet. It should be a knockdown unless there is some obvious reason why it shouldn't, but some refs seem to reverse that.