Winning on points.

Good day gentlemen, I am not really a huge boxing fan anymore, was earlier in my life, especially in the late seventies and eighties when guys like Pierre Coetser, Kallie Knoetse etc boxed. I did enjoy following Brian Mitchell when he was world champion and a little of Baby Jake Mtlala. These days rugby and cricket are the sport I follow most.

There is one issue however regarding boxing that has always bothered me. Boxing is a sport where the physical dominance of a fighter is the ultimate goal, whether you are more of a brawler of more technically correct and have the speed to outwit fighters the end goal is the same. Beat your opponent.

The problem that I have with winning on points is that boxing in it's raw format is about beating your opponent into submission where he is either knocked out or alternatively throws in the towel. Correct me if I am wrong, but was that not how boxing ultimately started?

For me boxing is supposed to still hold that value, and when a boxer wins a match on a split decision the result was one of perception. Two judeges see the match one way and the other didn't.

If I may use a comparison of rugby to illustrate. A referee looks at a ruck forming and allows a player to keep hands on the ball long enough to slow play down. Whilst the player holding onto the ball is doing this, he allows his backline to get back into defensive lines and hence buys the time for his team to organise themselves. The attacking team is complaining to the referee but he doesn't penalise the defending team. It is all about the perception of the referee, the attacking team and the defending team, but ultimately the referee's perception or in this case his interpretation of the law is the deemed correct one.

When in boxing the judges score from three different perspectives you might argue that it balances out. but surely from three different angles you don't see the same shot landed or the accuracy of a jab, uppercut or the effect it has on the boxer on the recieving end of a combination of blows.

I have always believed boxing should be the one sprt where a points system should not be used in professional boxing, simply becuase of the controversy and fallibility of the three judge scoring system.

when a boxer goes into the ring as the favourite, most fans would expect him to dominate his opponent into submission, but often the inferior boxer manages to hold on only for the superior boxer to get a comfortable points victory. This would suggest that he had an easy fight, but were yet not able to beat his opponent down.

I understand that boxing records shows how many fights a boxer has won and how mnay by knock out, but does a win by points not leave you with a sense of being mislead?

Anyway you guys are the experts, what do you say?

Interpretation of judges/referees is in most sports. In boxing the aim is to win rounds, not neccessarily to knock the other guy out. I dont see why a win on points, especially if its a convncing one, would lead to a feeling of being mislead?

True for the fight where one guy has dominated, but what about the controversial split decisions?

Morning, biltongbeck.

Fair to say that boxing did originate in precisely the way you describe, but it has evolved into something far removed from its origins, just as ( so legend has it, ) rugby was born of the frustration of a soccer player who, fed up with his team's inability to score, picked up the ball and ran with it. Dispensing with decision wins would represent an awful disservice to the fighters who have relied on silky skills - the Peps, Locches and Whitakers of this world - and this could only be a backward step.

You'll forgive my saying so, but your citing of Matlala as one of your favourites ( yes, I know he is a fellow South African, ) seems a tad inconsistent. He was hardly a concussive puncher, and has no knockout record to speak of.

I don't believe it to be a coincidence that Sugar Ray Robinson is the overwhelming choice as best fighter of all time. This is a man who embodied skill, grace, power, guts, flair and Heaven knows what else in one fighting unit.

I'd rather watch him than a couple of brawlers on the cobbles.

Morning mate. I see where you're coming from but the points scoring system is there in place of a suitable alternative. How would you have the fight judged if there is no knockout or neither of the fighters quit?

As manos said there is a certain amount of interpretation afforded to referees in most sports so I don't see boxing asbeing any different. The only thing I'd change about the scoring would be to have the referees watching the fight without being influenced by the noise of the crowd.

Interesting post all the same.

biltongbek wrote:True for the fight where one guy has dominated, but what about the controversial split decisions?

To some extent. But would be any more unsatisfying than a close football or rugby game where a referee has missed an obvious goal/offside/forward pass for a try that ends up making the difference?

The Boss wrote:Morning mate. I see where you're coming from but the points scoring system is there in place of a suitable alternative.

Fights to the finish, good enough for Sullivan should be good enough for the prima donnas now, game has been on the downslide since they scrapped em.

Better them than me, anyway. Might just put off my plans to turn pro now, Jeff.

Hi guys, Manos, yes it is similar to all sports that has to find a point system as an alternative to a knock out punch.

however where IMO boxing differs with other sport is purely because of one factor. you beat your opponent. Now if we take a close fight that ends in a split decision, it effectively means that somewhere two judges counted more punches or more effective punches, where as in actual fact taking it back to school yard boxing we all did behind the pavillion, you weren't deemed he winner just because you threw more punches.

I am not saying it is incorrect or unfair, I am merely suggesting that perhaps a split decision should be a draw as neither boxer convinced all three judges that he won the fight.

biltongbek wrote:Hi guys, Manos, yes it is similar to all sports that has to find a point system as an alternative to a knock out punch.

however where IMO boxing differs with other sport is purely because of one factor. you beat your opponent. Now if we take a close fight that ends in a split decision, it effectively means that somewhere two judges counted more punches or more effective punches, where as in actual fact taking it back to school yard boxing we all did behind the pavillion, you weren't deemed he winner just because you threw more punches.

I am not saying it is incorrect or unfair, I am merely suggesting that perhaps a split decision should be a draw as neither boxer convinced all three judges that he won the fight.

Well the judging is a bit more subjective than based on just counting punches and would incorporate lots of different elements like effective aggression, ring generalship, defence and so on but ultimately it comes down to just who you think wins a given round overall. As opposed to the more amateur boxing system where its about counting scoring punches landed.

In many cases the fighter that throws more punches wont be judged the winner in pro boxing as theres alot more factors considered.

The problem that I have with winning on points is that boxing in it's raw format is about beating your opponent into submission where he is either knocked out or alternatively throws in the towel.

Originally yes, but the sport has evolved and the scoring system is very much part of the sport. The idea is to beat your opponent and outscoring them is one way to do that. A points victory might not be as ultimately thrilling as a knockout victory but (to use rugby as an example) neither is a penalty goal as thrilling as the Barbarians try against New Zealand.