Boxing needs an evolution

Hey guys old poster back for some more under a new alias!

thought id share this article on how boxing scoring needs revamping.

i agree that the systems needs to change, many of the superstars of today go out there to not lose as opposed to going out there to win.

To me that just doesn't sit right.

what i want to know though is that an opinion shared by the masses or are boxing fans enjoying the more defensive calculated approach?

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/mayweather-vs-pacquiao-state-of-boxing-a-fight-for-relevance/

Sorry Mate............Effective aggression I agree with.... but If you are bigger puncher than me and stronger what chance have I got of getting a decision........Unless I box well on the retreat.....

Surprised to see such dribble coming from Holy's gob............Or maybe I'm not surprised..

He thought he deserved to beat Lennox Lewis because out of the 12 rounds he definitely won three and could have won another three !!

Printing articles............Moaning about Mayweather-Manny scoring....

Wonder If Haz is back...

I'm with Truss on this one (shock horror I know,) it has to be effective aggression. Just because the other guy can punch harder does not mean he should have a points advantage straight away.

Boxing is and art of hitting and not being hit after all.

Derbymanc wrote:I'm with Truss on this one (shock horror I know,) it has to be effective aggression. Just because the other guy can punch harder does not mean he should have a points advantage straight away.

Boxing is and art of hitting and not being hit after all.

You never learn........If you agree with me you're an alias !!

I don't do sides me Truss.

I've had this argument over and over again with that herbert that posts elsewhere. If it was just to be about power then you might as well have one of them carnival punching machines in the ring and determine the winner that way

Really depends on the lucky of the judges really in terms of what they like. Am all for a good tear up but I also do enjoy a defensive masterclass. It does seem that closish rounds do tend to go towards the aggressor but I tend not to judge that way. Clean effective punches landed is number 1 in my criteria of scoring a fight.

A little bit off topic but I have been enjoying PBC promotions recently. Although I do miss the Jimmy Lennon Jr's and Mike Buffer intro, its more about the boxing. Most of the fights IMO have been alot more competitive then usual guff you see. Empathised more sitting through that last joke Matchroom card the other day. Should have recorded that card and watch the Boxnation card instead.

Looking forward to the DeGale fight next week aswell. Watched the Froch v Dirrell that yesterday after watching ringside and at the time I had Froch winning but now I think he was a little bit lucky. Not sure why Dirrell didnt put it on him earlier, he lost that fight more the Froch won it IMO.

Obviously it shouldn't be about favouring punchers, but  whoever wrote that for evander made some reasonable points. They obviously hadn't looked at the scoring of the rumble, but much of the argument is valid if hardly groundbreaking. It does ignore that we still get plenty of humdingers, but stricter refereeing, clarity on scoring criteria and accountability are all things that would benefit boxing.

I'm not sure how judges are meant to receive and analyse compubox stats (that's if you think they are credible/useful) and write down a summary of why they scored the round a certain way, in the minute between rounds but conceptually it makes sense!

It just seems wrong to me when a round is close its scored a 10-9 and if someone is severely outclassed in a round the scoring is still a 10-9 if there are no knock downs etc.

I also feel refs need to be given stricter rules it is all to vague with holding,low blows,pulling a head down and so on, as it stands you can get away with it sometimes other times you cant depending on the ref and a point deduction has a big outcome on a fight so why not make the rules strict on when a point deduction should or shouldn't be dished out?

Agree with the above that boxing shouldn't favour punchers or stronger fighters as that isn't what boxing is about, it was more the scoring of a fight and lenience of rules that i see as a problem.

milkyboy wrote:Obviously it shouldn't be about favouring punchers, but  whoever wrote that for evander made some reasonable points. They obviously hadn't looked at the scoring of the rumble, but much of the argument is valid if hardly groundbreaking. It does ignore that we still get plenty of humdingers, but stricter refereeing, clarity on scoring criteria and accountability are all things that would benefit boxing.

I'm not sure how judges are meant to receive and analyse compubox stats (that's if you think they are credible/useful) and write down a summary of why they scored the round a certain way, in the minute between rounds but conceptually it makes sense!

If you used compubox to score Honey - Starling..........Starling would probably have needed a knockout going into the 9th..

Dan, the merits or otherwise of the 10 point must system have been debated at length on here and countless other places.

One of the basic premises of boxing is that the rounds are individual contests and that the winner is the guy that wins the most of them. How well they are won, is largely ignored excepting total batterings and knock downs. It's why drawn rounds are frowned upon and why you get fights like sturm macklin where the universally accepted better guy on the night maybe doesn't actually win enough rounds to win the fight.

Personally I agree with you and I'd prefer a more liberal use of 10-8's etc or a completely reinvented scoring system. Not all agree though, some think you'll get even more varied and contentious scoring.

The system is fine we just need competent and honest judges...

... Competent AND honest. You don't ask for much.

Who do you reckon dandavies is milky ??

Obviously likes printing articles....Obviously unhappy Mayweather got the decision..

It's a tough one ??

He hasn't labelled the entire board as idiots, his demeanour is friendly. He had an opportunity to quote mcilvanney's views on the 10 point must system, that the poster you're thinking of wouldn't have passed up.

So not sure you're right on this one trussy. You could always ask dan for his views on joe Louis and whether hagler Leonard was a quiet beating. Or plain ask him what name he used to post under!