By Gerardo Granados: It was reported that as a result of the WBA – WBC – IBF Summit there could be changes on the scoring system. A pilot program to score a half point on close rounds that is currently been used in Argentina could be implemented in not title bouts. But, can a half point avoid further scoring controversies such as the Arthur Abraham vs Paul Smith 119 -109 fight score?
When a fight is competitive and close you can have it a draw or give it to any of the boxers involved but a half point victory on the score cards might increase controversies; because to score a bout is a matter of appreciation of the fight and not a math dilemma.
According to the rules you can score an even round 10 – 10, but it is not usual to do so and you must give the round to one of the boxers. So, if the round is really close and hard to properly score then it should be scored 10 – 10 as simple as that. If you add the half point you would score it 10 – 9.5 which brings the fight close on the score cards.
Let´s say at the eight round “Alfa” boxer has won four rounds, one clearly lost and three by the score of 9.5 (77.5) and “Omega” fighter won four and clearly lost four (76); “Alfa” would need to win only one of the last two rounds to win the fight (96.5-95), that seems fine to me, but could this half point scoring void draws or even raise suspicions? If “Alfa” wins five and lost five but one of those by the score of 9.5 (95.5) and “Omega” wins five and lost five (95) then instead of a draw “Alfa” wins by half point.
It would be great to be certain that a fight judge will be able to see and count all the punches connected from the angle he is sitting in, and it would also be great to have a standardized idea on who wins the other three factors: defense, ring generalship and effective aggression.
It is strictly a matter of appreciation and you must decide by the end of the round which boxer won and better try not to pay attention to the crowd cheering his favorite fighter.
How do the reader scores “ring generalship”? There are technically gifted boxers and there are technically limited as brawlers, but the one who attacks takes the risk and the counter-puncher can pot punch and look better. One has better footwork the other will try to cut off the ring, which does it better or who isn’t able? The Chris Algieri vs Ruslan Provodnikov fight for example.
Defense: Is Kell Brook´s clinching considered as defense? To shut off rounds avoiding to trade and to clinch as Bernard Hopkins does is considered defense? How about Roberto Duran and Marvin Hagler always staying in fighting range blocking and slipping punches?
Effective aggression: Who did it better Canelo Alvarez´s solid punches or Austin Trout´s slaps? Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs Oscar De la Hoya? Riddick Bowe vs. Evander Holyfield II? Miguel Vazquez vs. Mickey Bey?
Clean and hard punching: For example Erik Morales vs Marco Antonio Barrera first and second bouts, and Francisco Rodrigues vs Katsunari Katayama fight. Was the reader able to account the number of clean and hard punches landed at those fights?
On times a fighter starts slow and closes strong and gets the round based on a barrage of punches not taking in account the other three factors. Basically the one who does the most damage will win the round.
To be a fight judge is not easy and it is great that the boxing organizations are trying to improve scoring; but to add a half a point can help avoid further controversies?
Comments are closed.