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.
"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
