Following my previous Jab Journal, I received an email from David M. who disagrees with my proposal to change up the current 10-point must scoring system: Justin, I disagree with your disagreement with the ten-point must system.  If not in place, way too much subjectivity would be injected in scoring fights.  It's difficult enough to score close/evenly competitive rounds or rounds in which one scored a good clean chin checker versus a few body or sharp jabs.  But to now impose a system in which judges can score 10/8, 10/7, 9/9, etc. on a regular would be too much subjectivity for public (or anyone) to somehow find agreement in.  You would now be requiring referees to decide who won round, but also by margin. The current scoring system is by no means perfect, but good enough in my mind if COMPETENT and non-corrupt officials and referees were in place.  If those officials were in fact in place, you wouldn't be writing about how close Gennady "GGG" Golovkin got to beating Canelo Alvarez, but the fact that Canelo may finally be at a level to beat GGG or Miguel Cotto (fights that many pundits had Canelo losing especially those against GGG). I agree that Canelo is special,but I'd be hard pressed to find a current fighter who's been given more benefit of doubt in close fights.  –David M

 

JUSTIN'S RESPONSE: 

 

David, you make some solid points.  But I wouldn’t have attacked the archaic nature of the ten-point must system of I agreed with you here.  You mention subjectivity—is that not where the beauty of a competitive fight truly lies?  Why try to take something so multi-faceted in nature and minimize it to the simplest of all scoring systems—winner/loser.  If a boxing match has ebbs and flows, momentum shifts, with both guys doing solid work simultaneously, you can’t tell me that a 10-9 round fairly reflects that action.  What if you have 12 rounds of this type of dynamic?  It is possible to end with a perfectly valid 120-108 score.  But does 12 rounds to 0 ultimately reflect the competitive nature of the bout?  Of course not.  So there’s a disconnect happening there between the fight itself and how it is scored.  Furthermore, when you have a sport devoid of concrete evidence of superiority, i.e. runs, goals, touchdowns, etc., then subjectivity becomes your only tool when it comes to judging.  So as long as we are asking judges to choose winners, then I believe there should be a system in place that produces more of an accurate illustration of the competition.  After all, why should you rely on judges to choose between a winner and loser of a “chin checker vs. jabber” type of dynamic when you don’t want to see them with more of a gray area for judging?  Did you ever think that perhaps we would get more palatable outcomes if judges were given more freedom as opposed to less?  That is after all their job.  But right now what we’re doing in this 10-point must system is similar to asking someone to sum up a novel in one sentence and pronounce it good or bad. 

 

You spoke against the idea for opening up the scoring system to 10-8, 10-7, 9-9 rounds etc., and that the public could not possibly find agreement in this.  Are you suggesting that the public currently finds agreement in most close boxing matches?  I don’t believe you really would think that, but I do believe what you’re saying is that more subjectivity would only further divide and confuse the boxing audiences.  I don’t fully disagree that that could be the case.  However, I think there is largely discontent currently amongst boxing purists and casual fans alike.  So why not at least attempt to remedy that?  If you asked ten boxing fans how they feel about judges and decisions in general, how many do you feel would speak positively?

 

Next, you spoke about competence and non-corrupt judges.  First, allow me to address the notion of a judge being corrupt.  I have spoken to a fair amount of boxing personalities who are high up in the boxing game.  None of them have ever told me that they believe any money is changing hands, or bribes of any nature are in place.  Does that make it a fact?  No.  But I too do not believe that any foul-play so to speak is happening (though I must admit, I have wondered on more than one occasion…I won’t say where I have thought this, but I’ll say it’s a state that starts with T and ends with EXAS).  So let’s instead focus on the idea of competence.  If I asked the most competent judge in the world to sit ringside for Canelo/GGG (1 or 2), and had him/her declare one winner and one loser for every round, do you think everyone would agree with that score?  There’s no way.  So I don’t truly believe that most questionable decisions are a matter of competence, I believe it’s a matter of not having wide enough parameters at their disposal for properly judging what they’ve just seen.  And when it comes down to it, in a close fight, not everyone will agree on the outcome regardless of the scoring system.  But what I’m trying to propose here is not a perfect scoring system, because I don’t really think there is one – I want to get closer to a more accurate reflection of a boxing match.

 

Finally, let’s look at what the 10-point must system reflects: it shows us who “won” the majority of rounds.  It doesn’t properly reflect who won the overall fight.  Let’s say a round is close to 50/50 because each man was doing things well.  That round will be scored 10-9, let’s say for Fighter A, simply because he was more aggressive of the two, albeit largely ineffectively.  Then in the next round, let’s say Fighter B wins it clearly, and does some decisive damage to his opponent.  That round will also be scored 10-9.  Right now, on the scorecards, this is an even fight.  But in terms of momentum, and overall superiority, is this truly an even fight?  Nope.  That would be like a baseball game being determined by who won the most amount of innings regardless of the total number of runs scored.  If a fight must be scored round by round, then I propose a 0-5 scale (a sample 0-5 scorecard will be shared on this site next week, as I went back and watched Jermain Taylor/Bernard Hopkins 1).  Two points are available for offense, two points are available for defense, and one point is up for grabs in an “intangible” category that is awarded when a fighter has blatantly seized an advantage.  Both fighters can be accruing points in the offensive and defensive categories simultaneously.  Be on the lookout for this sample scorecard on the 0-5 scale. 

 

 

Thanks for writing, David.  I’d love to hear more from the readers concerning this topic.