Why The Boxing Scoring System is Broken (and Can Lead to Horrible Decisions)
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 10. 2022
- I don't own anything in this video
Reddit post about AI model in boxing: / ai_punch_stats_using_c...
His CZcams channel: / @jabbr6434
Music from this guy:
/ @scarim4936 - Sport
They need to stop allowing judges from the same country as on of the fighters be able to judge
Or the same city and town
I don’t think that this is as relevant as it used to be.
Look at what you consider the worst recent decisions. Look at the judges nationality and see if there is correlation.
My guess is that you probably will not.
@@panamaharp that doesn't change that that shit still plays a factor in it. You act like it just doesn't exist
@@landoncube769 Did I say that? You may want to re-read my post.🤷🏿♂️
@@landoncube769 ok but in MMA we've never had these issues anywhere near as widespread as boxing to the point where we would never even consider the nationality of the judges as a factor in a fight😂
Boxing judges should have access to what is being televised. Judges stand in one place and don't get the benefit of all the camera angles we get on TV.
Refs in th NFL are able to review plays and reverse incorrect calls with the assistance of several angles that the human eye can't catch.
Keep up the content. Support from Yuma, Arizona!
Completely agree with this. MMA needs this as well. If the commentators have screens showing what's being televised, then there's no reason for the judges to not have the same luxury.
@@brandonhahn8760 they literally have one head in the ring, they couldn't get a better view then that. And are you really suggesting judges should be looking at multiple different screens?? 🤣 because you know that wouldn't break their concentration...
Las Vegas does replay now...
Omg.. u just see the man kll other man bettert - thats all what need to know about who's winning, who's not.
Been saying this for years
I agree with your scoring criteria for the most part, but it's hard for me to agree with effective defense playing a role in scoring. If I had 99% perfect defense but threw no offense whatsoever, I should still lose every fight because the goal of the sport is to hit your opponent.
Scoring it exclusively based off of the effectiveness of the offense takes into account defense just by nature, since if you have great defense, it'll make your opponent's offense far less effective (and therefore will cause them to score less). I know this is a hot take but I think it should essentially JUST be scored off of the "hard and clean punches" metric.
Reminds of a boxing match where two both boxer threw around 10 punches each max. They were called out on at end "Neither deserved to win." And rightly so.
I agree! Defense is a huge factor in any aspect of Boxing. If you want to outland your opponent, you have to make them miss. If you want to come forward and be aggressive, you gotta make sure you're backing your opponent up whilst not getting hit. Defense shouldn't be a criterion on its own, it should rather help with the evaluation of the other criteria.
That’s not how it works though. It has to be affective defense that’s controlling the fight. For example when Floyd fought de la Hoya Oscar was missing a lot of punches the judges favored Floyd because he controlled the fight offensively and definsively most boxing fans don’t know that that’s y they were mad and thought Oscar won
Should we just follow the olympics and have a count off to who landed the punches more?
defense is important criteria to actual boxing fans.
you have to separate ppl who just like certain fighters. and ppl who are fans of the sport first.
There's a huge thing that ppl who aren't truly fans of the sport are missing in this whole debate. which i do agree that boxing judging criteria is too subjective.
But ppl leave out talking about styles. Yes. Different fighters have different styles and attributes.
If you make the judging criteria based on offensive prowess only then you scrub the effectiveness of many fighters to win a fight just bc they have a style that's not favored by the judging criteria.
I think the most obvious example when judging gets criticized is when an aggressive come fwd fighter meets the slick boxer.
If the judging is pretty much.. who landed more hard shots. Then the slick boxer can never win in a close fight. Yeah sure if he outboxes the aggressor like crazy. but in a close even battle. The boxer will always lose bc over the fight they will more than likely have less big shots landed.
That's where clean effective punches comes in.
a boxer doesn't have to knock ur head back for a punch to be clean and effective. time and time again we see the aggressor coming fwd about to throw some big winding shot and get hit clean with a jab or straight punch.. that punch wasn't particularly very damaging. But it forced the opponent to reset. Therefore it was effective. it wasn't a pitty pat shot he just walked through.
If you land 5 clean effective punches how does it make the opponent a better BOXER to land one heavier punch. esp if it's just a heavy handed guy. every time he touches you it's gonna be a hard punch.
so let's just say in each round of a 12 round fight the boxer landed 5 clean effective punches and the aggressive fighter landed one hard punch.
after 12 the aggressor landed 12 punches.. the boxer landed 60 PUNCHES!
But bc the come fwd guy has heavier hands or the style and attributes to land that punch once per round versus 60 clean effective forcing a reset punches?!
honestly this is Joseph Vincent level of content, keep pushing and I promise a million by this year isn't too far away.
I wouldn’t say that quite yet. Mans still worried about getting copyrighted. 😂
No it's not. The audio quality isn't as good. The video editing isn't as good. The writing is genuinely quite bad. Numerous grammatical errors glaring enough to distract me from the subject matter in every single video, etc.
Had to come back to this after Loma Vs Haney
I would suggest (in no particular order):
1. Punch Damage/Quality
2. Punch Accuracy
3. Punch Volume
4. Defense
Punch damage shouldn't be a thing in scoring
As there are already many rewards for punching hard like getting knockdowns and making the opponent afraid
Hard punchers like wilder already fit well and doesn't have a disadvantage in scoring
What's the criteria for the quality of each punch? because that has to be measured and categorized, and categorization implies subjectivity, even if the AI does the catogorization, the inicial programing was done by a team of humans. Still I agree with the AI and technology in general to be a part of judges scoring. Another thing is defense and landing punches are objective measures, but there are cases when those mesures are really close and boxing should be more than a math problem. I agree we should do something about effective aggression and ring generalship, but I think there should still be a deeper analisys of the clash of styles to add to the objective measure.
Ring generalship is a really useless metric. If you have a fighter with a defensive style who prefer to fight moving back and slipping around the ring against an aggressive fighter who prefers to chase down their opponent both of them are fighting in their preferred style. So in that case who would you award the points for ring generalship? What if the aggressive fighter is only being provoked to come forward and is actually being led around? This metric straight up cannot be reproduced
I knew ring generalship is crap even when i first saw that criteria it had me confused
If defensive fighter is moving back and not getting caught on ropes he is winning the ring generalship.
ring generalship sounds useless I thought so myself. but it kinda make sense because it's about control. two guys may be fighting their preferred style but who's style is winning those rounds? it makes more sense than I thought
@@ricoransom2001 whoever style is winning would be landing more lol. It’s that simple.
@@josemariantoniofajardo2941 I think we saying the same thing fam lol I’m just saying it in a around the world way
In regards to the judges, I don't think they take payments directly. However if they don't score in a promoter friendly way they won't get hired to work the big events. At least that's what teddy atlas has speculated.
Another GREAT video, interesting topic, amazing informative and opinion are given and great commentary! Also the future computer judging is a mad ting
Best boxing channel on entire app
My dad always told me the best way to score a fight is to look and think which fighter would you rather be in the fight and that’s who’s winning
I always said there was never hard evidence of corruption with judges. Thank you for shedding light on this. Showtime's upload breaking down Charlo vs Castaño really shows how one judge can scored it the way they do (wide).
Ur videos have been the best boxing/mma videos explain everything so well
I totally agree with u. It just makes so much sense to score for the man who hit and didn't get hit and not how he did it(because it's blatantly subjective). So crossing off ring generalship and effective aggresion is perfect. And in terms of volume or damage I definetly prefer damage>volume, because for example: u may have landed more but your oponent did more damage and was closer to ending the fight
boxing is entertainment and people like aggressive fighters, that's why it's scored based on aggression
Once again thank you for your video! Everytime I see one I immediately know it's gonna be good.
One archaic thing I've never understood about judging is the positioning. They simply don't have a good view of what is happening in the ring. If you find it hard to tell if a punch landed with a high angle HD camera zoomed in and slo-mo, how are these guys sitting at ringside looking up through the ropes going to know? They should be in a booth with access to all the camera feeds/replays and the up-to-date compubox numbers.
9:30 I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve been thinking this is where many combat sports need to move towards. The technology is already there.
There’s little-to-no reason for human judges at this point, unless corruption is the goal.
Great video
Human judges could still play a role by essentially giving a face to the scoring but perhaps their scores should be compared with an AI and are expected to score within one standard deviation of an AI or within a 0.05 error margin and if they score over or under that then their score is rounded the score the AI measured plus one or something like that.
@@Maccanarchy lmao. clueless. AI is trained/programmed by humans. Who says the AI can't be trained/programmed to be biased?
I love your videos ❤️❤️💐 thanks for spoiling us with amazing content !!
I really like your videos as you provide details and also your own Input/solution. In regards to your idea of the 2 metrics, hypothetical in a round if someone landed 15 punches and the other guy landed 5 and there is 1 minute to the round. He could technically just run away for 1 minute coz he knows he has won the round and keep doing this every round. Know that he landed more and run away for the rest. I'm curious if you think it could lead to this and what could be implemented to counter it.
Good point. The thing is you can get penalized for not engaging and the referee is able to tell the judges to deduct a point if you just run away and not fight. Floyd ran around the ring a lot but it wasn’t to waste time. It was a strategy of using footwork and defense to frustrate the opponent.
Love your content bro keep up the good work
Effective aggression promotes more action filled and exciting fights, but other than that it’s not useful in determining who’s the better fighter.
I'm from Brazil and I want to congratulate you for your quality content, I hope boxing returns to the great popularity it had before
Good video man. How do you feel about the scoring method/concept that basically says, whoever is closer to ending the fight should win the round?
It would be interesting to run that scoring technology over a lot of close fights from the past and see what it scores them
The WBC way of releasing their judges scorecards by round 7 is a good way for judges be pressured to not screw up against the people currently watching
Like someone said earlier, the nature of offence and defense is mirrored, so you only need to count one to know the other, ie if someone is connecting with a lot of shots, you know that the other guy is defensively compromised. Other than that the only critique I have of your method of determining who wins is the way you use the word "damage." To me at least, damage = (average punch power) x (volume). So while I agree that damage is overall the most important factor to the outcome, damage itself should be determined by measuring the amount of and power of, a competitors punches. That way independent of a boxers style(hard hitter/volume puncher) the punches will be measured and counted for what they are worth purely in terms of damage caused, and not just counting how many "decent" shots went thru. I will admit is extremely difficult to measure accurately so I dont know how they would produce such a result in a short amount of time.
The AI model sounds pretty amazing.
As far as effective aggression goes; it is super subjective obviously but I'd say the reason for it's importance is to encourage fighters to fight instead of playing it "safe" my guess it is more a scoring criteria for the fans benefit than it is for any competition between the participants. Following on from that perhaps it does have a place in the sport but not equally weighted with other more objective measures and would essentially end up being a deciding factor in a close fight, rather than an equally weighted scoring criteria.
I like your earlier points and ideas to increase objectivity, but I think introducing computer analysis would be a misstep. There has to be a certain minimum amount of human flexibility and discretion in a sport like boxing, to keep the fighters honest. If rules become totally rigid, particularly if judging is partially scored by a computer, people will discover how to game the system and maximize points with maximum efficiency in ways that might not ultimately make for a good actual fight.
maybe u could add computers and make them just an aid to the judges and not the main factor to scoring a match, or maybe u put two human judges and a computer as the third one
underrated channel. you just got a new subscriber
6:17 pacquiao would've won the fight too if the judge had it right
An ai is an interesting model of scoring. It would completely change boxing as although more objective (the creators of the ai still inject bias) people would immediately start learning its scoring method and change styles to score better.
Great vid bugman
Love your content TJ. Would love to hear your opinion on having a FIFA / NFL type organization for boxing. A sort of national commission as it was once proposed
Could you change your background to black and make your text white? It’s kinda hard to look at with a bright background.
Teddy Atlas has said before that the judges are taken out on fancy dinner, vacations and given outlandish gifts by the governing bodies. With that said great video!
I think it’s the promoters that pay them. Even if it’s not a flat out bribe, there is obvious conflict of interest there. You want to make your employer happy.
I agree for the most part…I still think there’s a place for ring generalship because in my head I think of generalship as dictating pace, being more “effective” in your style, and just being able to decide where fight is taking place, while being able to neutralize your opponents greatest strengths, I will say about 85 percent of when I score rounds I don’t need to even think about that metric however there are times I do when rounds are super close
The volume vs big hits argument I think it should just be overall who did the most damage, in this argument alone, not just who ever landed the most or who landed the biggest
I agree with your points on eliminating subjectivity by reducing the variables to the more objective ones like defense and hard clean punches. The AI stuff also sounds great. Although, I wonder if the lack of interpretability regarding the details on how the model calculates its results would hurt its credibility in the eyes of the many. It's pretty difficult to interpret a "black box" AI model since they are sufficiently complex to the extent that they are not easily interpretable to humans. In other words, there must be tons of unidentifiable variables used to classify each type of punch, whether it landed, and where it landed. This could potentially leave lots of room for a much more inconspicuous form of corruption. However, taking a look at it, the application as a whole shown in the video does a great job at being transparent by recording the results in real time for people to confirm for themselves, so I personally think something like DeepStrike is an excellent idea. As long all the records the model spits out are easily accessible to everyone and not just the judges. Btw nice video. I wasn't expecting you to be a CS student. That's interesting. I've watched some of your other videos and didn't take you for a big fucking nerd (I'm saying this as a data science major with a CS minor). Not many creators can make good quality, interesting, and well presented boxing/fight content. I can see you getting big on CZcams in the future.
Those variables you're talking about would be damn near impossible to intentionally manipulate in any way. CZcams's AI for example has similar faucets to its system. There isn't a singular or group of programmers who knows even a functional fraction of all the things YTAI measures. and every attempt to shift it intentionally causes a cascade effect of shit going wrong afterwards.
Of course, in ten years time, that may not be the case, but currently: if it's AI driven, the programmers are just along for the ride. I find it difficult to believe that anything could influence the boxing AI's algorithm outside of the robot's own unintentional bias.
Here is how I would fix scoring in boxing and mma:
There is only one round.
Both boxer/fighter keep boxing/fighting until one of them is either unable to continue or quit.
You're welcome.
I love everything about these videos
I'm watching this after watching tyson fury vs ngannou, I think there is something suspicious because they made an ad for a fight between tyson and his next fight. If he had lost there wouldn't be that, there must be something and there should be an investigation, thank goodness UFC doesn't mess with boxing
Dude and Walter at 8:16! You are a legend!
I wish I had discovered your channel earlier, this is a late comment but I find it hilarious how the Machine Learning punch counter just looks like hitbox / hurtbox frame data from a fighting game. Life imitating art I guess.
Tj, you've got great content.
Nice vid bro
Actually quite surprised you're a CS student on top of your YT channle, really cool though. Congrats dude, you've got lots going on
When this guy posts my day gets a little bit better
I think there’s too much discretion for judges to decide who wins a round. It is heavily-reliant on perception, and one’s perception can be skewed.
bro ur so underrated
coming back to this after Loma vs Haney
I enjoy your videos but I disagree with you on this one. For the most part I do agree with you.
I would at least put ring generalship and effective aggression as a third scoring system together. Maybe in some instances they can be separate.
Knowing that a offensive fighter who continues to chase down their opponent have effective aggression to have ring generalship would entail that the same fighter knows how to cut the ring off from their opponent even when getting grabbed being able to not get spin around so their opponent is out of the corner.
Same for the defensive fighter they would have ring general ship in the sense of being able to maneuver out of the corner and effectively not get hit. To see a defensive fighter become the aggressor I would give them the extra not because they're doing something that they don't do.
Hey TJ, this was a great video. I definitely agree that judging in boxing is way too subjective, there's no quantitative way to check a judge's scores, and compubox is not reliable enough on its own for that in my opinion.
I think some kind of AI to judge boxing fights could be a useful tool and would become more of a deciding factor once it matures. However I would absolutely recommend you avoid saying a machine learning model would eliminate subjectivity. Any algorithm is going to be biased based on the person writing it and the data its given. Look no further than the hiring algorithm that favored guys named 'Jared' for biased AI.
That's my only real criticism, I agree with all your other points and I would love to see a more reliable and subjective way to reliably score fights. I made my own punchstats but they take all day for a single fight, some kind of machine learning automated scoring would be needed to be done quickly. I'm sure boxing politics would resist it but if implemented well enough I'm sure it can happen in my lifetime.
Do you have a github repo for your punchstats stuff? That sounds mad interesting.
That seems insane.. The end anyway (I quite enjoyed the new idea of scoring criteria)... It's just that we have "compubox", and every real boxing fan (and boxer /ex boxer) knows that compubox is so insanely inept. It continually seems to count blocked shots, counts shots that hit nothing but air, and records weak jabs as "power punches", I'm not even getting into it's ability to recognise glanced blows as serious power..
Your telling me that a real program exists, that can not only count actual shots landed, but intensity of shots?
I'd have to see it to believe it.. And I honestly hope it exists 👌
I am definitely team quantity. I don't think a feather-fisted fighter landing multiple three or four (or in your case FIVE) punch combinations should be ignored just because someone blessed with power lands one. Damage pays for itself. If the power puncher is landing the damaging blows, we will know about it eventually. We don't need to be ignoring the soft puncher's work in the meantime.
I agree. If I land a hard shot, it should do damage. They stun, stagger, create mental hesitation and knockout. All of which can be strategied in the fight
Yeah and at the end of the day, boxing is a sport. Skill over natural talent. Power and chin (which is ability to take power punches) are completely natural for the most part. However ability to land more punches and not get hit matters more. I think power should come more into play if the fight is close.
iirc i've seen amateur boxing scoring boards which lists light punches and heavy punches separately where heavy ones are often the ones aimed at head, 2 numbers for each giving landed punches/total punches for both. So the board would have something like 20/40 and 5/8, so the guy threw 40 jabs, half of which were blocked and 8 punches with knockout potential, 3 of which were blocked. The few matches i saw using this board made sense to me. I think heavy punches had more weight on total score but separating the two gives some idea which boxer had overall control or if they were focusing on some area specifically instead.
Effective Agression isnt necessarily about landing punches but rather is one fighter able to effectively and clearly apply pressure to his opponent by backing him up or causing him to become reactive.
There needs to be an advocacy where only former fighters can become boxing judges.
terrible idea
@@owenharperjones explain.
@@ligmaballs0911 boxers have different styles and incentives plus why would a retired boxer want to become a judge when they could be an analyst commentator trainer etc there is no money in it for them
@@owenharperjones there’s hundreds if not thousands of former fighters who ?could fill the roll that for the longest time judges haven’t been able to correctly figure out. Most of these judges have no fight experience, no training experience, didn’t even start out as a boxing judge originally but are making career defining decisions on a sport they have no expertise in. Also, I’m not necessarily speaking for the top & most popular retired fighters to become judges but there’s plenty of others who aren’t commentators or analyst or have the privilege of making a CZcams channel who can fill those roles.
@@ligmaballs0911 it's never worked in other sports ex pros aren't refs or anything so why should it suddenly work in boxing
I am explosive power puncher who is scared of boxing in leagues because judges here count how many times you touch your opponent. My brother left his rival in blood with cuts, yet brother lost because he was more defensive last round, but almost none punches were landed on him. His opponent even run from him few times during all 3 rounds.
so you are for damage inflicted?
there are always issues with subjectivity in sport granted but also art is subjective and boxing is as much an art as a science, so i feel leaving in some slightly more vague rules makes sense even though it does create issues in higher levels where the judges motives aren't clear.
If there's an AI designed to statically score boxing, that'll be great. After the fight we should at least wait 10 minutes for an A.I. to sum up the total.
Im team volume because at the end of the day, when a fighter is teached to land alot more then the other, they usually kinda make the fighters wanna swing hard. So overall it makes a good high volume fight. But i do agree that if theres a punch that clearly did alot of damage it ahould have more value then simple jabs
You and nordic warrior are the only CZcamsrs that actively call out the bullshit of boxing kudos
Love this. Have definitely thought objective data should dictate results, especially when we track punches landed anyway. However I'd keep ringmanship in the criteria because a fight spent against the ropes should be marked lower than a fighter dominating the centre of the ring. Maybe a zoning system and the AI could track how much time each fighter spends in a particular zone 🤓
I do not think you would need that because the whole point of ring control is that you are able to hit them more and if you are going to be against the ropes it will be much more difficult to jt them. This will make it so that it does matter just not in an actual scoring sense.
The kick-boxing scoring criteria is much more logical and a bit less subjective.
Glory (in order of importance):
1. Number of knockdowns.
2. Damage inflicted on the opponent.
3. Number of clean strikes with spectacular techniques (flying and spinning techniques, etc.)
4. Number of clean strikes with normal techniques.
5. Degree of Aggressiveness or Ring Generalship (whichever has greater impact on the round)
It's similar in most organizations - knockdowns and clear signs of physical damage are the main criteria because it is, after all, a fight and not ballet or point karate, clean strikes come into play if there were no knockdowns or no significant damage was dealt (with impressive techniques scored over tapping jabs) and only then do you see aggressiveness as a factor (if the round was a bit boring and pretty close otherwise).
I agree , but the punches you don’t see hurt the most. A light punch not seen has the same effect as a super hard punch that would be my only issue with saying a hard punch should count more.
Ideally there would be no judge.
Only a computer that spits statistics and spits a victory
THIS is why 'punches landed' should be considered over these criteria's. Makes fights much better and whose actually controlling and winning the fight.
I’d keep effective aggression but merge it with ring generalship. Example if a fighter has effective aggression it would be him pressuring his opponents against the ropes, it’s like in mma when a wrestlers holds a guy against the cage the guy against the cage is being controlled so if a boxer can keep a guy in a corner then he is winning the fight by effective aggression where the opponent is being controlled
I think judges are just shit at judging rather than being corrupt per se.
I like some score methods that some traditional Muay Thai that doesnt count the score per round. The points are counted during all fight, doesnt matter if they were made in the space of a round or more.
Erislandy Lara vs canelo Alverz was the worst decision made by judges.. I think the corruption is because majority of boxing matches venues are in cities where sport betting is legalized
Yea the AI you showed at the end would be a good idea. Assuming the AI parameters (which we chosen by a person let's not forget) are adequate. They are subjective UNLESS you just count all punches equally
Before you even said it, in my head I was thinking “1 hard punch should be equal to 5 light punches”. I guess I agree with you.
efficiency over volume any day to me but at times i did scored fights in the favor of the volume fighter because the fighter yes efficient but not throwing enough efficient shot that makes the judges think he won the round i know that a lot of efficient fighters are slow starter but sometimes they get stuck in that not knowing they are getting sparked
There's 3 minutes per round but if you substract the clinching, circling, range-finding, mini pitter-patter exchanges, etc. then you're probably going to be left with a combined or even a single stretch of 45-75 seconds of actual or significant moments of action. (of course after already taking into account ring generalship and defense)
What I'm proposing is longer breaks in between rounds - 90-120 seconds. Judges get enough time to replay and analyze specific moments in the round that they weren't certain perhaps because they weren't able to see from the angle or because the referee obscured the view, or maybe the crowd was too noisy, or the punches were too fast etc. 90-120 seconds is also long enough that they could replay or SKIM through the entire round at 1.5x speed and then slowing/zooming/replaying from different camera angles once they reach important exchanges or moments in the round.
Longer breaks could also mean fighters get a little bit more recovery, more meaningful discussions with their corner, and thus more action in the next round. More time for the cutman could also mean less fights stopped because of cuts.
Nobody wants to watch an hour long fight where 24 mins of it is just two guys sitting in the corner and probably another 15-20 minutes is clinching and holding
It seems like "effective defense" also can be subsumed into the OPPONENT'S punching.
If I can defend well, then my opponent scores less for both volume of punches and hard & clean punches.
I think it should go by ,clean and hard punches , defence , counter punching , technique, effective agressivness , aggressive defence , and ring general ship
The issue with scoring a punch on damage is some people get easily cut or swollen. Look at Berto for example. Turns into a puffer fish when he gets hit. Yet others don't get a simple mark on them. That's down to genetics and not any sort of boxing skill and having a boxer at a disadvantage from the start doesn't make the fight fair.
For me you'd have to have a scoring for volume and damage because both are important in their own right. Some fighters don't have the power to cause the damage from a few shots so they will throw more than their opponent.
The one thing I agree on is ring generalship because sometimes a boxer going backwards is actually their game plan. Letting the opponent gas out so they can take advantage is sometimes a brilliant game plan. This is really subjective because it can look like one fighter is pressuring the other even though it's part of the plan. Of course there is times where it's clear to see that's the case but putting pressure on another fighter and been aggressive isn't always a good thing. Then even if someone is been aggressive, if the fighter who is counter punching and moving backwards, therefore is controlling the fight how they want should get the point for that option. Granted as I mentioned sometimes this is difficult to see as the pressure from another fighter is there but that then means the pressure fighter is in control because they are imposing. Look at it like a Mayweather Jr fight vs say a GGG fight. You can see Mayweather is controlling the fight even though he's going backwards. Same thing with GGG where he is going forwards and feels more comfortable (example the 1st Canelo fight).
So to me the scoring should be volume, damage, defensive, control and punches landed. One more extra thing to thing of but at least there's 5 options to score from.
The AI thing is great and will definitely help the judges if it makes it that far.
Trying to remove as much subjectivity as possible sounds like a great idea. A perfect way to do it is to have say an AI tracker to analyze every punch thrown and its impact and just have the computer judge the fight. However, if a computer is judging the fight, is it really a human sport anymore? It sounds weird but if the fight was judged statistically correct every single time, we would be losing out on so many storylines. Fights that went to a trilogy probably just go one fight when a computer determines that one fighter is clearly better than the other in the first fight. And if we were going the full computer route, eliminate the ref altogether and have a computer determine when a fighter is doing something illegal. This would eliminate lots of controversial reffing decisions, but it will also eliminate a lot of the kost interesting parts of some boxers' game. The dirty boxing in the clinch, the veteran moves, the foot stepping, etc. All these small things that a normal boxing match has would be eliminated and it would solely be a statistical game where the most effective puncher wins. There would be little to no variation on the odds of one fighter beating another which would make it boring when you know exactly how a fight will go because of strict boring rules that keep fighters in a small box of variation.
Although this is an extreme example of how eliminating subjectivity affects the sport of boxing, I think there is some charm in having an unknown variable that cannot be quantified by pure stats. It makes fights more interesting, and makes them more unpredictable
I think the best example that I could think of as far as this argument is Taylor vs Chavez 1. Taylor landed more punches and looked good doing so, but Chavez landed the harder, inside punches. I usually think who would I'd rather be at the end of the round.
The 10-7 round is actually allowed as in the case w/ Jmm Vs Manny 1 Round 1. The purpose is if a judge doesn’t want to allow one good round to completely wash out another fighter having an amazing fight otherwise. It makes sense in the Jmm Vs Manny 1 fight because Jmm did win more rounds but because if a bad opening round should he have lost the whole fight
I fucking love this channel
So for the AI, if a punch is blocked and lands on the glove, will it still register as a punch landed or not?
POV you’re here because of Loma losing to a robbery to Haney
Me to brother 😔
If you are going that route I would just separate damage and punches entirely and score the round based on defense, damage inflicted/taken, and punches landed. 2/3 wins the round barring a knockdown or a massive outperformance in one category.
I think q quick fix or more just to combat bad scoring for a bit would be to double the judges…3 to 6 six… it’s not completely gonna fix it but I think that many heads judging a fight would help.
Also too many short rounds.
I believe that 7 rounds of 4 minutes would be much better than the current 12x3.
We would have 28 minutes, 8 minutes less of fighting, but with less rest time and more intense rounds where the boxers can grind deeper.
I definitely like rating the punches with quality to measure how much the punch scored
I think more judges using 'wisdom of the crowd' principles could work at the top level with a lot on the line e.g title fights, by linking qualified media scores with ringside judges (up to say 100 judges total) via keypads like gameshows (you'd only need 2 keypads per person, one for each fighter with the numbers 7-10) giving actual judges a higher weighting vs the media and average out the scores, highest average score wins.
Doesn't help less valuable fights but would I think help to come to more of a general consensus on who wins the most important fights
If u throw a lot of punches but they’re all on the gloves I don’t think this should count towards points
You don’t have to score any amount of knock downs any certain way. Usually if there is a knockdown it will be a 10-8 but that’s not always the case. It’s completely up to the judge to score rounds
hey are you on another social media platforms outside YT?
First time at this channel, wow I would love for AI to take over the scoring system,aka judging as humans are so fallible
Effective aggression I believe is valid because boxing is not just a sport but entertainment. Cus taught Tyson the peek-a-boo style for entertainment purposes, it’s exciting and creates great action filled fights. I think the fact that there’s a score for this bring incentive for fighters to put on a better show for the audience.
dope video
I feel like if you edge a round it should be 10-9, if you clearly win a round without a knockdown it should be a 10-8. This would encourage fighters to be more active and would it force fighters to be active because they don't want to lose a round by 10-8 if they take their foot off the gas.
I think a knockdown should be a 2 point deduction instead of 1. This would encourage more action and it would make a fighter plant their feet more to avoid getting a flash knockdown when their knocked off balance when they're trying to quickly move out of range. Also, it's wrong to me that a round where one fighter just slightly outjabs another fighter will be scored as 10-9 whereas a round where one fighter lands 50 power punches to 0 but if they don't knock the fighter down it will probably scored 10-9.
An objective scoring system still has judges that view it subjectively. As for punch effectiveness, thats so hard to objectively judge. Even that cool ai at best only see's whats done visibly on the exterior of the body. I think that would be a nice addition to judging at least, but it wouldn't remove subjectivity. Say both sides land around the same percent of power shots. How do you judge that in the middle of the match accurately? Generally, you can't. Given enough people viewing the same thing, a consensus could be reached by a large majority that would be more accurate. However, with only 3 judges for a match, that can swing wildly from person to person.
There should be extra judges that watch the cameras and not at ringside as well. At the least that gives more perspective of the fight overall that watching from a seat beside the ring won't, and it adds judges for extra balance. You will end up with less unanimous decisions, but they would be more accurate overall.
I like that. Basically our sample size of judges is too small, and it will lead to a lot of variation in judging
Personally id value defence less than offence, the reason being if your defence is good in earlier rounds it will be evident in your offensive abilities in the later rounds but equally it would encourage aggressive styles so there would be less points conclusions.
Also let fighrers know the scores so they can change strategy if the judges are wrong