Your take on Joe Koizumi's "Scoring Stands Reform" article commenting on the Mayweather-De La Hoya decision.
Regardless if you have been a boxing fan all your life or are brand new to the sport, we at Memphisboxing.com feel that this article offers very arguable points on the sport's scoring system but specifically raises ebrows on the De La Hoya-Mayweather decision. After reading this article if you have an opinion you would like to share submit your name and e-mail address to champ@memphisboxing.com. You will then receive an e-mail invitation to join the free MemphisBoxing.com blog at BlogSpot.com where you can sound off.
Commenting on the Mayweather-De La Hoya Decision
By Joe Koizumi, from Fightnews.com (5/9/07)
This is to suggest that the current scoring standard be reformed for the sake of better decisions to be accepted by the general public, not only by the ringsiders. I was a TV commentator for the Oscar De La Hoya versus Floyd Mayweather Jr. fight on a live telecast in Japan. I, along with great majority of TV watchers, thought De La Hoya the winner because of his continual aggressiveness.
During the broadcast in Japan, after the eighth round we were shocked to hear an HBO commentator's intermediate score of 77-75 in favor of Mayweather, as we saw De La Hoya winning by 78-74 by watching the screen signaled from Las Vegas. We admit it was a close affair in the end due to Mayweather's surge in the last four rounds. It was also surprising that many ringsiders favored Mayweather as the winner even if it was close.
Usually boxing bouts are broadcast by TV people and reported by press people. Where do they watch the fights? At ringside, of course. They are limited "RINGSIDERS." Assume a situation that some 1,000 ringsiders around the ring see Boxer A as the winner, while people in the balcony and TV watchers around the world, on the contrary, see Boxer B as the winner. It actually happened in the case of "The World Awaits" in Las Vegas.
Boxing is a sport to be watched not only by limited ringsiders but by the general public in the world. People cannot afford to pay $2,000 to buy a ringside ticket, so they watch the fight on TV. Ideally, the views of the ringsiders and the general public should be identical. Ironically, however, the current scoring standard sometimes makes the respective views different.
The scoring standard consists of: (1) clean effective hits, (2) aggressiveness, (3) defense, and (4) ring generalship. Furthermore, there is a tendency that even a very close round is given to either of the two boxers. It may be sometimes difficult to judge whether a certain punch (or combination) was effective or not, and which of the boxers was superior in terms of ring generalship. People watching from the second floor or on TV feel that the aggressor should be the winner. But the ringsiders, including the judges, see it differently in favor of the other boxer. It means that the rich and the poor see a different thing in the same fight.
Yours truly wonders if the current declining popularity of boxing may be caused partly by the complex scoring standard or its understanding. The judges occasionally pick a winner that people don't agree with. Then TV watchers and/or majority of spectators (except ringsiders) get disgusted and frustrated by the decision.
Boxing should be simpler to the eyes of all the general public in order to regain its popularity. Boxing used to be a manly sport to compare strength, speed, fighting spirit, durability and skills. But it is turning into a different sport since the current scoring standard evaluates slick-punching and sly boxers more favorably than game and aggressive punchers. In the near future all world champs may become Floyd Mayweather stylists.
We may have to reconsider the current scoring standard, its application, or the validity of forcibly scoring an even definitely close round for one of the contestants, etc. in order to revive the popularity of boxing among the general public.
"Scoring Stands Reform"
Commenting on the Mayweather-De La Hoya Decision
By Joe Koizumi, from Fightnews.com (5/9/07)
This is to suggest that the current scoring standard be reformed for the sake of better decisions to be accepted by the general public, not only by the ringsiders. I was a TV commentator for the Oscar De La Hoya versus Floyd Mayweather Jr. fight on a live telecast in Japan. I, along with great majority of TV watchers, thought De La Hoya the winner because of his continual aggressiveness.
During the broadcast in Japan, after the eighth round we were shocked to hear an HBO commentator's intermediate score of 77-75 in favor of Mayweather, as we saw De La Hoya winning by 78-74 by watching the screen signaled from Las Vegas. We admit it was a close affair in the end due to Mayweather's surge in the last four rounds. It was also surprising that many ringsiders favored Mayweather as the winner even if it was close.
Usually boxing bouts are broadcast by TV people and reported by press people. Where do they watch the fights? At ringside, of course. They are limited "RINGSIDERS." Assume a situation that some 1,000 ringsiders around the ring see Boxer A as the winner, while people in the balcony and TV watchers around the world, on the contrary, see Boxer B as the winner. It actually happened in the case of "The World Awaits" in Las Vegas.
Boxing is a sport to be watched not only by limited ringsiders but by the general public in the world. People cannot afford to pay $2,000 to buy a ringside ticket, so they watch the fight on TV. Ideally, the views of the ringsiders and the general public should be identical. Ironically, however, the current scoring standard sometimes makes the respective views different.
The scoring standard consists of: (1) clean effective hits, (2) aggressiveness, (3) defense, and (4) ring generalship. Furthermore, there is a tendency that even a very close round is given to either of the two boxers. It may be sometimes difficult to judge whether a certain punch (or combination) was effective or not, and which of the boxers was superior in terms of ring generalship. People watching from the second floor or on TV feel that the aggressor should be the winner. But the ringsiders, including the judges, see it differently in favor of the other boxer. It means that the rich and the poor see a different thing in the same fight.
Yours truly wonders if the current declining popularity of boxing may be caused partly by the complex scoring standard or its understanding. The judges occasionally pick a winner that people don't agree with. Then TV watchers and/or majority of spectators (except ringsiders) get disgusted and frustrated by the decision.
Boxing should be simpler to the eyes of all the general public in order to regain its popularity. Boxing used to be a manly sport to compare strength, speed, fighting spirit, durability and skills. But it is turning into a different sport since the current scoring standard evaluates slick-punching and sly boxers more favorably than game and aggressive punchers. In the near future all world champs may become Floyd Mayweather stylists.
We may have to reconsider the current scoring standard, its application, or the validity of forcibly scoring an even definitely close round for one of the contestants, etc. in order to revive the popularity of boxing among the general public.
Labels: Scoring
posted by Memphis Boxing at
8:42 AM
3 Comments:
I ran a similar article last year, though not basing it so much on scoring reform for the betterment of the sport, but a clearer view of why we get such a wide variety of scores in such fights.
I have to completely disagree that questionable decision today have forced fans away from the sport. There have been shitty decisions throughout the history of the sport.
Henry Armstrong's win over Lou Ambers completed his trifecta - simultaneously reigning as featherweight, welter and lightweight champ. However, what gets lost in the story is that the crowd vehemently protested the scoring, so much that the telecast ended with the crowd STILL booing - a good 15-20 minutes AFTER the decision was announced.
That's just one of a zillion examples. When people claim that as their alibi for abandoning the sport, I call bullshit and remind them of the history of the sport, and all that they stuck through. Don King is evil, yet it was OK to accept that the Mob once ran shit? PBF-DLH scoring controversy further drives fans away, yet Leonard-Hagler wasn't as much of an issue?
I don't buy it.
The only needed reform is a clearer outline of each scoring criteria, and that shoeshines and crowd reaction SHOULD NOT factor into who wins a round.
By
JakeNDaBox, at 9:55 AM
It is fairly easy to agree on a checkered history behind the sport of boxing.
In order to really look into what the future holds for boxing one has to find some way to calculate the sport's growth and compare/contrast it with other fighting events, which aside from offering a slightly different product, are basicly similar. But these other events are GROWING – rapidly.
An educated look at how boxing is doing would be to say, "Is it growing?" But, how would you look to see if it is growing? Pay-Per-View numbers? Comment Cards? Mailers? Maybe a website polls?
One factor to take into consideration of decline/rise of boxing is the eb and flow of talented fighters.
It is difficult to discount observations that bad scoring (realize "Bad Scoring" is subjective) is not having an influence on boxing's fan base.
Historic bad calls are a part of the sport and fans have put up with them and returned back to boxing's table for a few rotten scraps. The reasoning for that is that we are willing to mark it off and say, "The bad decision/call/judgement doesn't suprise me." By saying this we accept it.
Boxing has changed since it began. For the most part by establishing rules that protect a fighter's safty. Who is to say that there need to be rules establish that are for the safety of boxing?
One could take the Koizumi article and break it down to bare bones to communicate an underlying statement of, "Make boxing more objective."
By
Memphis Boxing, at 11:43 AM
Scoring a fight, will forever be subject to each particular judges perspective. While it is true there are certain criterias that are in place to aid in scoring, the fact is that each judge has a different viewing angle for the fight. While one judge may clearly see a punch landed, a judge on the other side may not see that particular punch or it's effect, due to many factors, perhaps the ref is in the way, or the fighters are facing away from one or more judges, just two examples.
All judges are aware of the standards in which they are supposed to judge a fight by, and believe me, I have had to announce scores from fights in which I myself wondered - "what fight were they watching?!", by and large for the most part, the scoring is good.
As to the DeLaHoya vs Mayweather fight - and I too went to Las Vegas for the show, I personaly had DeLaHoya in front thru let's say the 5th or 6th round, I felt he controlled the fight, he threw more punches, and was blocking most of Mayweathers' "feather fisted" approach to fighting. I realize Oscar didn't land everything he was throwing - but when only one fighter is throwing punches - how could you possibly score it any other way?!
In my eyes, coming down to the "championship rounds" it was DeLaHoya's fight to win or lose, while he still maintained control of the action and pressed the issue pretty much throughout, he seemed to put his jab away, which didn't land much, but did help him stay in (or out) of range.
Personaly I thought Mayweather simply tried to steal rounds at the end of each round ala Sugar Ray Leonard, and apparently it worked with the judges. But really, I came away feeling like neither fighter deserved a win - Mayweather didn't go in there and try to "take" the belt from the Champion, and DeLaHoya really didn't put up "you aren't taking my belt" kind of effort.
I thought the fight was closer to a DRAW than anything else, and can't help but think a rematch is inevitable. Although as for me - well - I will sit that one out, or maybe catch a nap after the introduction, after all - I won't miss much - and yes - styles make fights. This matchup just wasn't good the FIRST time and it won't be good the NEXT time either...
By
jd lyons, at 3:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home