Amateur computer scoring

cowzerp

Having boxed in the age before computer scoring and into the change over into it i have to say i hate the computer scoring system, fair play to Paddy Barnes the other day but to me its not real boxing, just placing your hands over your head and making a shield and fights ending up 4-1, he's just playing the game so im not knocking him or anyone btw.

4-1 people!! that means 5 scoring points are landed and i've seen lower-thats ridiculis, when i was starting out i was a scrapper and used to win most fights with this style, by the end of my boxing time i was a boxer, this was forced on me though due to the computer scoring not awarding combinations and suiting singular punching...

What is everyones opinions on computer scoring and would they prefer scoring to be more like the old system, awarding, style, aggression, ringcraft, and obviously punches landed..

mushykeogh

Yea i think its beginning to have a bit of a negative effect now. I think wel see more and more of the high guard defensive work. We'l end up seeing scores of 2-0, 3-1 for three rounds of boxing. Some lovely body shots whipped in during the last week, not a single point awarded for any of them.

Vintagekits

Anti-Boxing!

Ireland seemed to have perfected the art actually. Again not knocking them, they are playing to the rules and if the scoring system was altered they would adapt to that - at the moment its sheild the face, dont bother blocking shots to the body and pick your points.

megadodge

What is everyones opinions on computer scoring and would they prefer scoring to be more like the old system, awarding, style, aggression, ringcraft, and obviously punches landed..

The problem with the old system was that far, far too many judges marked on the retarded 'he was going forward' notion. The genuinely stylish, skilful, good defensive boxers were often ridiculously beaten by fellas who had hardly landed a glove on them, but hey "they were going forward" or "he was making the fight". And this is coming from a big punching, aggressive former boxer with no defense, so if anything I should be favouring the old way, but I just saw way too many classy boxers getting screwed using that system.

The main problem I have with computer scoring is the non-scoring of body punches. I can't see why they are not counted and it has been a bugbear of mine for a long time now but it doesn't ever seem to be addressed.

Broadly speaking I prefer the computer scoring as in general the right man gets the verdict.

cowzerp

megadodge wrote: »

The problem with the old system was that far, far too many judges marked on the retarded 'he was going forward' notion. The genuinely stylish, skilful, good defensive boxers were often ridiculously beaten by fellas who had hardly landed a glove on them, but hey "they were going forward" or "he was making the fight". And this is coming from a big punching, aggressive former boxer with no defense, so if anything I should be favouring the old way, but I just saw way too many classy boxers getting screwed using that system.

The main problem I have with computer scoring is the non-scoring of body punches. I can't see why they are not counted and it has been a bugbear of mine for a long time now but it doesn't ever seem to be addressed.

Broadly speaking I prefer the computer scoring as in general the right man gets the verdict.

Basing a fight on just head shots is not the right man getting the win, Body shots never score which is wrong as there meant too-you could be landing harder more effective blows and there the same scoring as a scabby jab, not saying jabs are scabby but trying to differentiate between a really good punch and a non punch, knocking an opponent surely should score more than landing a weak nothing punch, if anything if your behind its a disadvantage dropping an opponent as the count is eating into your comeback time...

Computers are making amateur boxing boring it has to be said, it would be a bit better if the scores did not need the 3 judges pressing together to count the punch, then if it was a draw the system in place now counts and accuracy is the deciding factor.

Vintagekits

cowzerp wrote: »

Basing a fight on just head shots is not the right man getting the win, Body shots never score which is wrong as there meant too-you could be landing harder more effective blows and there the same scoring as a scabby jab, not saying jabs are scabby but trying to differentiate between a really good punch and a non punch, knocking an opponent surely should score more than landing a weak nothing punch, if anything if your behind its a disadvantage dropping an opponent as the count is eating into your comeback time...

Computers are making amateur boxing boring it has to be said, it would be a bit better if the scores did not need the 3 judges pressing together to count the punch, then if it was a draw the system in place now counts and accuracy is the deciding factor.

its not the computers its the scoring.

Judges just have to be instructed to score body shots equally. Also two points for a standing count as well.

walshb

My biggest gripe with the scoring is shots not being scored, in a nutshell.

But, one thing that really gets me is when a fighter lands a clean and obvious body shot, the chances are he will not get scored for it. They do score them, but rarely.

Also, a standing count in a round MAY not even get a score. A public warning gets two points taken from the offender; I believe that if the ref gives a count, a point should automatically register. Plus, besides a fighter maybe not even scoring a point for a count, the opponent gets a break/rest? Double whammy.

There have been also been many instances where the scoring fighter didn't get the score and the opponent did, particularly when both throw shots at the same time; it's a blur and the judges score for the guy not landing. Darren O'Neill's final had a instance or two with this happening.

As for Barnes fight. He won, but seriously, his opponent did score more than one point. 9 mins of boxing and one ****ing point?

The QF for Darren saw his opponent land a fair deal of shots and get pretty much nothing.

walshb

Vintagekits wrote: »

its not the computers its the scoring.

Judges just have to be instructed to score body shots equally. Also two points for a standing count as well.

Vintage, why I wouldn't score TWO points for the count is because far too many times I have seen counts awarded for the average run of the mill shot. The referee jumps in needless far too many times. It's a boxing match, not a tickling competition. Lock Stock;)

Vintagekits

walshb wrote: »

Vintage, why I wouldn't score TWO points for the count is because far too many times I have seen counts awarded for the average run of the mill shot. The referee jumps in needless far too many times. It's a boxing match, not a tickling competition. Lock Stock;)

again, thats down to the quality of the official rather than the rule.

A counts deserves recognition for the boxer the delivers the blow - if not then it is an advantage to the recipient because they receive a recuperation period without penalty.

cowzerp

Vintagekits wrote: »

Judges just have to be instructed to score body shots equally. Also two points for a standing count as well.

Agreed on more points for counts, maybe 2 for a standing count and 3 for a knock down-these should be awarded so the fighter who done well is rewarded, not penalised..

keane=cock

personally i agree that the mian problem i have is the shots not scored. it crazy. they want to take the power from the amatures(or partly take it as it must be a power shot to register a point) and not looking for knock outs like in the pros and trying to get the skill level up. thats fair enough but as has been stated keeping your hands up around your temple n picking shots isnt all there is to boxing.

i dont like the system personally