Olympic Boxing so far, radical changes being considered?

Ive been pretty disappointed so far with the boxing to be honest. I lost touch with the amateur game quite some time ago and it was in large part due to the confusion and the scoring system that the amateurs employ. I have watched the current Olympic boxing intermittantly, but its a familiar feeling. Scoring that is very ambiguos and hard to determine, decisions that dont seem to match the action, inconsistent officiating and the usual controversy that follows boxing around. In essence while I understand the principal and theory behind scoring amateur boxing, it just doesnt seem to work effectively in practice and leads to confusion.

My chief complaints with the system would be:

1) quality of punches not considered. Eg. A light jab scores the same as a hurtful power shot
2) scoring unreflective of the action. Eg. The Irishman Nevins final round against a Mexican. He was knocked down and winded by a body shot and chased all over the ring while looking to hang on. He still somehow won the round in terms of strikes landed.
3) Fighters with a lead of three or more points going into the last round can just run away.
4) Bouts have tended to be low scoring, with a very low proportion of punches scoring compared to being thrown.
5) Scoring system appears ineffective. If the nature of amateur boxing is simply to score points for punches landed surely a computerized compubox system would be more accurate to this human button pressing system which seems to mingle subjective with objective unneccessarily.
6) Combination and body punching appears to go unrewarded, despite it supposed to count.
7) Inconsistent officiating with regards the amount of spoiling and infringing fighters can get away with.
8) Difficulty in trying to score a bout accurately, as in trying to accurately score each individual punch landed by two fighters with only a split second to decide. Although the system is aggregated across the 5 judges, it still seems a difficult task to try and complete accurately. Not only do you have to decide if a punch landed, but also if it landed on the correct area, with the correct part of the glove, using the correct technique. And with the speed and volume of punches thrown, the fact there are 4 arms at work compared with two eyes for the judges, it seems an overly difficult task.

I read an article in the LA times online which seemed to recognise that there were problems. The head of the AIBI, Wu Ching- Kuo is considering radical changes including a return to the 10 point must system, removal of headgear and the open invitations to pro fighters to compete in the Olympics for the 2016 games.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-oly-boxing-dysfunction-20120805,0,3474746.story

The pros in the olympics would be a terrible disadvantage for the amateurs, however it would be an absolutely cracking show for the fans!

The changes being proposed surprised me. I cant see them opening it to professionals as that would kill the amateur element completely (assuming pros decided to enter). Neither can I see the headgaurds being removed on safety grounds.

But I could see a return to the old round scoring system, or at least significant changes being introduced to the scoring system. I personally find the current method very unsatisfactory. Its seems to try and subjectify what is an objective system in a way that is very difficult for a human to acheive accurately.

Who's to say all the pros would get in? I know Froch was a good amateur, but it's not hard to imagine him wading in with his pro warrior style and getting out pointed by an up and comer whom he'd flatten easily in the pros.

I can imagine Mayweather and RJJ would be chomping at the bit though, for obvious reasons. Pacquiao never really got to have an amateur career so he'd be up for it you'd think.

As exciting as that all sounds, many amateur are turned into stars of the future by winning olympic golds and they likely wouldn't get that opportunity if Andre Ward was in the opposite corner.

As with pro boxing, I don't think the scoring system is to blame that much. An incompetent or bias official will ruin the result regardless of the system.

The difference for me in the pro and amateur scoring system is that I think even a good, unbiased and competant judge would still struggle to accurately measure each individual strike landed in an amateur contest. It just seems too difficult to do. Is it really possible to correctly score an amateur boxing round under this system? Ive tried doing it myself, and its exceptionally difficult. I find the concept of scoring a round to one fighter or the other much easier to apply, as opposed to scoring individual punches landed although I agree that poor judges can ruin almost any system where there is human error.

I dont think we will see pros being allowed into the amateur system any time soon. Im not sure Mayweather for instance would want to risk his unbeaten record in a 3 round format round robin system with only a paltry gold medal at stake. The financial incentives for top pros to enter would need to be quite high to tempt them. Its essentially a prizefighter like system under the proposed changes. Plus I think the impact on the actual amateur game itself would be too drastic. How would qualification occur? Either no amateurs would get in at all or the ones that did would be horribly overmatched. It would cruel to line up the likes of Anthony Joshua against Wlad Klitschko or Campbell against Donaire.

Great post. Spot on! The Olympic boxing has been the biggest disappointment of the games. Something needs to be done. The standard has been poor and the scoring is a joke! I can see them removing boxing from the schedule unless changes are made. Why not let the pro's in? The NBA basketball stars are allowed in and the top tennis players are allowed in. The top golfers will be allowed in next games. So why not boxing? In the past there were great boxers who were amateurs like Ali, Lewis and Sugar Ray Leonard who could hold their own but they just dont seem to produce them anymore. What has happened to boxing in America? No offence to these guys like Anthony Joshua but they just dont cut it. Pro's should be allowed in to add to the excitement.

alma wrote:The boxing has been pretty poor tbh. You mention introducing the pros would take away the amateur element, but I don't see anyone complaining about Andy Murray or Ryan giggs taking part. Bring in the pros I say, I Couldn't care less about the amateurs tbh.

Very true. People want to watch the biggest stars play like Federer, Murray Djokovic in the tennis, the big NBA basketball stars from the U.S. It shuld be the same for boxing and would generate far more interest. We have been kidding ourselves with the amateurs for a while. Even Harrison won a gold medal but when he went into the pro ranks he was useless. We should just admit the amateurs dont cut it anymore and as fans we should have the best athletes involved.

i think the quality has been very very poor, the womens boxing has been of a higher standard in some cases, and thats saying something. also echo the thoughts of it been too tough a job, especially now the white scoring part of the glove has been removed, why is that?

opening to pro's would be fun, but which pro is going to go through the long qualifaction process, and even if the olympics allowed pros would any of the qualifying events allow it?

eddyfightfan wrote:i think the quality has been very very poor, the womens boxing has been of a higher standard in some cases, and thats saying something. also echo the thoughts of it been too tough a job, especially now the white scoring part of the glove has been removed, why is that?

opening to pro's would be fun, but which pro is going to go through the long qualifaction process, and even if the olympics allowed pros would any of the qualifying events allow it?

Spot on. What has happened to the amateurs? Why is the standard so poor? Ali, Lennox Lewis, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Sugar Ray Leonard. What do these guys have in common? All were Olympic gold medallists! There is nobody like this around these days. Nowadays Amir Khan, Audley Harrison and James DeGale! I think the top pro's should be allowed in with no qualifying. The Olympics should be about the best boxers fighting it out for gold. How many gold medals would the likes of Ali won if he had been able to box in the Olympics and be pro at the same time?! I think they should change the scoring to who wins the round. Its alot easier.

lennox might be tempted to try and win one for us this time round.

If they brought pro boxers into it Surely olympic boxing would become the biggest sport in the olympics, even if it was only the less known pros competing.

Gordy wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:i think the quality has been very very poor, the womens boxing has been of a higher standard in some cases, and thats saying something. also echo the thoughts of it been too tough a job, especially now the white scoring part of the glove has been removed, why is that?

opening to pro's would be fun, but which pro is going to go through the long qualifaction process, and even if the olympics allowed pros would any of the qualifying events allow it?

Spot on. What has happened to the amateurs? Why is the standard so poor? Ali, Lennox Lewis, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Sugar Ray Leonard. What do these guys have in common? All were Olympic gold medallists! There is nobody like this around these days. Nowadays Amir Khan, Audley Harrison and James DeGale! I think the top pro's should be allowed in with no qualifying. The Olympics should be about the best boxers fighting it out for gold. How many gold medals would the likes of Ali won if he had been able to box in the Olympics and be pro at the same time?! I think they should change the scoring to who wins the round. Its alot easier.

You're comparing today's batch of amateurs with some of the greatest fighters ever to have laced up gloves, that's a bit like saying how come today's footballers aren't as good as Pele, Cruyf, Maradonna etc.
Personally I don't think the standard is that poor, just think you're being incredibly harsh, a lot of these boxers are just learning the game so can hardly be expected to be the finished article.

Gordy wrote:

alma wrote:The boxing has been pretty poor tbh. You mention introducing the pros would take away the amateur element, but I don't see anyone complaining about Andy Murray or Ryan giggs taking part. Bring in the pros I say, I Couldn't care less about the amateurs tbh.

Very true. People want to watch the biggest stars play like Federer, Murray Djokovic in the tennis, the big NBA basketball stars from the U.S. It shuld be the same for boxing and would generate far more interest. We have been kidding ourselves with the amateurs for a while. Even Harrison won a gold medal but when he went into the pro ranks he was useless. We should just admit the amateurs dont cut it anymore and as fans we should have the best athletes involved.

Maybe no one is complaining now but they were when professional tennis players, footballers & basketball players were originally admitted to the Olympics - just because they've stopped shouting doesn't make it any more right. The reason why people did not want professionals in the Olympics was partly because they didn''t want the ethos diluted & also these professional sportsmen have their own professional championships to play in so why do they need to get involved in the Olympics?
Of course everyone knows why they want to get involved - the glory of winning at the Olympics & the chance of dangling a gold medal round their necks.
If professional boxers were allowed into the Olympics what would happen to amateur boxing? It would probably cease to be & that is where the pros learn their trade so who would really benefit in the long run? Only the short sighted would be my suggestion

Couldn't agree more KC, putting pro boxers in to the Olympics would ruin the amateur side and it would make it a lot harder to find stars of the future.

Also noticed you said Joshua "just don't cut it" well I disagree his performance last night was superb, nearly punch perfect in fact and the wage he through his straight right hand with venom was good to see. For a guy who has only been boxing for 4 years it's fantastic what he's achieved.

Pro boxers in the olympics? In order to safely complete a tournament within such a short period, they'd need to fight three round fights with headgear. Would they be willing - or able - to adapt?

Re the OP, the scoring and treatment of knockdowns requires a radical overhaul at least. At the boxing last night, Joshua landed a beauty flush on the Chinese boxers chin and dropped him but only gets one point for it (this is akin to Manos' point re a soft jab scoring the same as a heavy one). The knockdown was much much worse than Camarelle's wobbling of Price against the ropes a couple of years back which warranted a stoppage. I just don't understand!

Wouldn't want to see the pros in the Olympics and, to be honest, unless one had a particular axe to grind I doubt many pros would even bother entering, mainly as they are highly paid prima-donnas for the most part and wouldn't be interested in fighting (esp every couple of days) without money on the line. To be honest, I'm not sure they'd even do that well, headguards, only 3 rounds, no value in knockdowns, poor scoring of combos and body shots - not many pros would fancy a bit of that.

hampo171 wrote:Couldn't agree more KC, putting pro boxers in to the Olympics would ruin the amateur side and it would make it a lot harder to find stars of the future.

Also noticed you said Joshua "just don't cut it" well I disagree his performance last night was superb, nearly punch perfect in fact and the wage he through his straight right hand with venom was good to see. For a guy who has only been boxing for 4 years it's fantastic what he's achieved.

Joshua was better last night, I said that on another thread but the standard of boxing has been low throughout. In the past there have been great boxers in the amateurs but those days are gone. It seems like boxing in America and Cuba is really struggling and they used to provide the top amateurs usually. The Olympics should be about the best athletes. What is the point of winning a gold medal if you are not the best? Some of the amateurs I have watched have been hopeless.

Gordy wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Couldn't agree more KC, putting pro boxers in to the Olympics would ruin the amateur side and it would make it a lot harder to find stars of the future.

Also noticed you said Joshua "just don't cut it" well I disagree his performance last night was superb, nearly punch perfect in fact and the wage he through his straight right hand with venom was good to see. For a guy who has only been boxing for 4 years it's fantastic what he's achieved.

Joshua was better last night, I said that on another thread but the standard of boxing has been low throughout. In the past there have been great boxers in the amateurs but those days are gone. It seems like boxing in America and Cuba is really struggling and they used to provide the top amateurs usually. The Olympics should be about the best athletes. What is the point of winning a gold medal if you are not the best? Some of the amateurs I have watched have been hopeless.

Yeh, Gamboa Rigo and Lara are just pants, aren't they?

alma wrote:Can you imagine David Haye fighting twice a week? The bloke would have a heart attack!

Won silver in the World Championships...

The thing with exceptional fighters, Gordy, is that they tend to be the exceptions. If everyone was exceptional then nobody would be.