Half Point System Half-Baked?
 By Chris Ackerman (Oct 28, 2007) Doghouse Boxing
Or maybe the soup company executives who came up with it were. At any rate, the WBA’s push to implement a 20 point Must system under the pretext of giving judges “another tool” in the form of half points. Maybe it’s just me, but the last thing we need at ringside is another tool. I’m completely in favour of reviewing, adjusting, consulting and ongoing dialogue about rules, scoring and every other facet of boxing. I’m just not convinced that this is the most effective way to make an improvement.
The argument coming from the WBA, and evidently subscribed to by the WBC, is that the 10 Point Must System is too blunt an instrument to adequately score professional fights. Some rounds are simply too close to award to one fighter by an entire point, and the range of what qualifies as 10-9 is from a squeaker on one end to a pretty good lickin’ at the other. Too wide, in the opinion of these commissions.
The counter arguments pretty much reveal themselves to anyone willing to give this a second thought. First, the WBA and WBC? What have they done for us lately? If their executives are so concerned about improving the sport, how about they merge and encourage the other two to join into one. Or better yet, lobby congress for a National Commission. Right. Anyway…
Second, there is a well-detailed outline of guidelines for scoring, just listen to the happiest pharmacist in the world he’ll remind you of the basics. “Okay Jim! Fights are scored on clean, effective punching, ring generalship, effective aggression and defense, with a strong emphasis on clean, effective punching.” Professional boxing is not figure skating. Professional boxing is not gymnastics or diving. Each round is a mini-fight, scored on who won. That, almost by definition, eliminates the need for introducing half-point margins of victory.
Consider the vault event in gymnastics: an incredible feat of strength, speed, agility and every other facet of athleticism, to be sure. Have you ever watched a competition (or any other of the aforementioned sports) and wondered how the
judges could possibly make a 0.1 point distinction between one performance and the next, when they are over inside of mere seconds? So have a lot of people. I can’t even tell after watching super slow motion replays. Boxing is judged on basically one thing. Clean punching. You can add the others to distinguish between two close performances, but really…it’s the punching. Does breaking the scoring down to half points really serve the intended purpose of allowing judges to distinguish between close rounds? Probably, but do we want them to? I don’t. I don’t want a guy to win a round that was so close as to be distinguishable by a half a point. If it’s that close, call the round a draw and take the judges’ subjectivity out of the picture. Imagine a title fight that was one by a half point. Shudder.
There is also a number of other complications that will have to be resolved. Does a knockdown still count for a full point or is a flash knockdown a half point? Maybe staggering a guy is a half or if a glove touches but not the knee? Maybe if you really clock a guy and it’s a brutal knockdown it’s a point and a half. Who knows, I am just not convinced this is the right move, and I don’t think it will have the intended effect of reducing the number of draws. That, and proper scoring, could be done by judges who are well-qualified, properly screened, sober and not wearing coke-bottle glasses. Cataracts and home-cookin’ are more of a problem than the 10-Point Must System.
I do applaud the commissions for exploring options for improving the sport, I just think this is the wrong approach. It’s not the law that needs to be changed, it’s the enforcement.
|
|
|
|
© Copyright / All Rights reserved: Doghouse Boxing 1998-2007
|
