Let's face it: it's not easy to find a clear-cut winner in every single round of a fight.  In the close rounds, it takes a high level of recognition and understanding of pugilistic flow to be able to confidently declare one fighter the victor over the other in a three-minute micro fight.  And if a round is awarded without a decisive advantage, which is so often the case in tight rounds, then should we really be awarding the “winner” of the close round ten points while simultaneously giving the “loser” of the round only nine points?  By this logic, it is therefore conceivable that a closely contested twelve-round fight could end in a 120-108 shutout. Such a score would not accurately reflect the competitive nature of the bout.  There's something wrong with this system.

Should even rounds not be tallied more liberally, considering how frequently we witness close, often too-close-to-judge type rounds?  The problem is that judges don't like to score 10-10 rounds; most judges, if not all, will always score 10-9.  If even rounds were awarded more often, with simultaneously a larger point disparity for a clear winner, then we'd see a more accurate scoring system, one that is deserving of the dynamic nature of a boxing match.   Isn't that the objective of scoring in any athletic contest: to accurately measure a team's or individual's progress in the competition?

However, the difficulty in trying to score a boxing match is that a clear and decisive victor isn't witnessed in every round of a fight.  It's not as simple as totaling runs, baskets, or touchdowns.  But according to the Ten-Point Must System that currently dictates how fights are scored, the rounds with no clear winner often count as much as rounds with no clear and decisive victor (unless there is a knockdown). This manner of scoring does not match the action.  

Furthermore, when a clear-cut victor is agreed upon at round's end, why then should he only be awarded the same point margin that his opponent was just previously given in a close round that might have gone either way?  

How often do we see a fight that is close through eight rounds with very little in terms of discernable dominance... Neither fighter having seized momentum, and neither having damaged his opponent in irrefutable fashion?  Quite often, right?  And for the first two thirds of this fight, let's imagine that Boxer A has been moving forward, pressing the action, but again, failing to fully impose his will.  But neither has Fighter B.  He has been looking to counter, moving laterally, trying to find his timing and expose a weakness.  Is it fair that Boxer A is given these rounds simply because a 10-9 is going to be given to one fighter OR the other, since even rounds are just not satisfactory?  

If that happens, Fighter A is ahead by six or even eight points.  What happens then in rounds nine through twelve, when Boxer B has found his timing?  He exploits the diminished energy reserve of Fighter A from his early aggression and, even at times, his recklessness.  He wins these rounds by a far greater margin than did Fighter A in any of the first eight rounds.  Fighter B acknowledges the final bell with his hand raised high, his lungs full, and a facial display of satisfaction at strategically and methodically besting his opponent when all twelve rounds are in the books.  

His triumph is short-lived however, as Fighter A has been declared the winner by seven rounds to five twice and once of eight rounds to four.  But this was no robbery.  The fix was not in.  The judges got it right.  It was the scoring system that got it wrong.  Taking scorecards out of the equation, we saw it: Fighter B was our true victor.  When we have to ignore the scoring to acknowledge who truly won, something is not right.

This is what I propose…

All winning rounds are not created equal.  Therefore let us reflect that in our scoring.  

Should a fighter be the clear victor, let's award him his just due.  And if a fighter loses a round, albeit while putting on a good display himself, then let's award him as well, just less so than his conqueror.  And when we see one of those many rounds where not much happens at all in terms of identifiable dominance, then let us score it as such.  As we've determined that the one-point margin of a rigid, stubborn, and archaic 10-9 does not distinguish between a clear round winner and a flip-of-a-coin type winner, I suggest that we open up the point scale with larger margins accurately distinguishing between the many disparities by which a round can be won.  A 0-5 scale would accomplish this nicely.

Let's now revisit the aforementioned fight in the 0-5 point scale.  In the first eight rounds, Fighter A was our aggressor, moving forward and pursuing his opponent.  And while he was not all together successful in his assault, he was simultaneously not allowing his opponent, Fighter B, to do much damage himself.  These eight rounds might resemble the following: 3-2, 2-2, 2-1, 1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 2-2, 3-2, in favor of Fighter A bringing his tally to 17.  He is getting credit for his aggression, punch output, and slight edge in punches landed, but Fighter B is also being rewarded for his ring generalship, defense, and perhaps a jab total, putting his tally at 13.  A 17-13 score, or a four-point margin, with room for growth should a fighter pull ahead later, is certainly a more palatable disparity than is an 80-72 or 79-73 type of scorecard that we would see in a fight like this after eight rounds according to the 10-Point Must System, all but putting the fight out of reach already without the aid of a knockdown. 

In the final four rounds, it was determined that Fighter B truly pulled ahead and imposed his strategy on Fighter A, winning this last third of the fight in a far more decisive and apparent fashion, by a much larger disparity than did Fighter A in any of his winning rounds.  Now our scores, with a 0-5 point scale, can more accurately reflect this fight's flow.  Fighter B wins these rounds by margins of three, four, or even five points, rewarding his dominance.  3-5, 1-4, 2-4, and 0-4 are the scores in his favor albeit for only a third of the fight, yet justly rewarding his winning effort by displaying a larger disparity in the rounds he owned over his opponent.  Now our scorecards reveal the true victor by a tally of 23-30.  

I concede that this 0-5 point system is not fool proof.  The only way we ever have a fool proof system is by eliminating scorecards all together and simply letting the fighters go until one is knocked out or simply collapses from exhaustion.  But that idea is as illogical as the 10-Point Must system.  Given that we must have scorecards, and given that we must score rounds as if they were twelve micro-fights, as opposed to one long 36-minute match, then The New! 0-5 Point Scale gets us much closer to putting in place a system that accurately and more frequently determines our victor.