Majority scoring system

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CQ1qWySmzqE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Skip to 2:35 where Harold explains this "new" scoring system. Obviously wasn't implemented... but I kinda like the idea.

Does anyone know if majority scoring was used in a fight that actually went to the cards?

Do you guys this this was a good or bad idea? What are the pros and cons?

 

Also, Jefferson/Harris was a lot of fun if you've never seen it.

 

Interesting...so it sums the final scores? I'd say going with the majority on a round by round basis would be better. Mitigates the damage one bad judge can do a bit.

 

It was mentioned in Ring Magazine back in the day, they did an article on it, it seemed to make sense to me.

Then the WBU introduced a 20-Point-Must-System, which solved absolutely fuck all.

 

there was a ''scandal'' about it in the Harris-Robinsion fight where the fight was scored a draw but would have been scored a Harris win had it been conventionnal scoring. Teddy went apeshit about it and I think it wasn't used anymore after this

 

He's a fucking clown. I don't give a fuck how "passionate" he is about boxing, he wets his breeches far too often over fuck all.

 

Harris won the fight on all 3 judges' scorecards, but the fight was a draw because of majority scoring.

It was a predictable result, but the reactionary crybabies who advocated for majority scoring failed to appreciate how fucking stupid majority scoring is ahead of time. The only good thing is that it happened so quickly after the change to majority scoring had begun.

As I remember, majority scoring was fallout from Lewis Holy 1 since it would have resulted in the 'right' guy winning that fight.

Also, a 'bad' judge has far more ability to influence a decision in majority scoring than he does in regular scoring, Hut. The worst he can do in regular scoring is make a split decision. In majority scoring he can turn a loss into a win.<!-- NewPP limit reportPreprocessor node count: 4/1000000Post-expand include size: 0/2097152 bytesTemplate argument size: 0/2097152 bytesExpensive parser function count: 0/100--><!-- Saved in parser cache with key wikidbcache:idhash:18840-0!*!*!*!*!*!* and timestamp 20120723154049 -->

 

Harris hasn't seen it, but I doubt he'd think its much fun if he did ::

 

Thats why I suggested majority scoring on a round by round rather than aggregated basis would be better.^

 

Apparently that was under 'consensus scoring', not majority scoring. That wouldn't be possible under majority scoring

EDIT - excuse me I'm talking pish, consensus scoring is majority scoring as I imagined it (round by round rather than aggregated as discussed in the vid). As I read I though it required the consensus of all 3 judges for a round to go either way. You're quite right.

 

Can anyone explain more exactly how majority scoring works ? Harold's explanation in that clip doesn't quite cover it.

 

Majority of the scores determines the scoring for the round:
Judge 1: 10-9 Bill
Judge 2: 10-9 Frank
Judge 3: 10-9 Bill

Scoring for the round = 10-9 Bill and that's it.

Judge 1: 10-9 Bill
Judge 2: 10-10
Judge 3: 10-9 Frank

Scoring for the round = 10-10

Judge 1: 10-8 Bill
Judge 2: 10-9 Frank
Judge 3: 10-10

I don't know what happens.

 

Yeah by Lederman's explanation I thought they just summed the 3 scores over 12. Which is obviously wrong. Lederman is awful.

 

A scenario like the last one might've been behind Harris-Robinson, since there was a deduction and a KD. I'd be quite curious to see those cards

 

Lederman is a fucking spastic. We need a purge in boxing, people like Lederman can be forced to stand up at show-trials, Right Honourable Floyd Mayweather Sr, Presiding, and compelled to read out false confessions and make outrageous admissions of guilt before being banished to the nether regions of the sport, doing radio play-by-plays of toughman contests or something. Or doing the RBR scoring of those "Grudge" fights.

 

Yeah, it gets confusing once you hit the 3rd example... you'd like to think something that extreme would never happen, but eventually it would.

1 - Pacquiao
2 - Bradley
3 - Pacquiao
4 - Pacquiao
5 - Bradley
6 - Pacquiao
7 - Bradley
8 - Bradley
9 - Pacquiao
10 -Bradley
11 - Bradley
12 - Bradley

And Bradley still beats Pacquiao 7-5. ::

 

If I find who who's fucking cousin Lederman is.....:nono:

 

I AM GOING TO LAMBKIN!!!

 

Is there a good site for finding old official cards? Id love to see if PW-JCC, LL-Holy, ODH-Tito etc would've been any different but google isnt cooperating

 

Not sure. I'll take a poke around... I'd like to do the same. Give me a couple minutes.

 

Go figure... I can only find Lewis/Holyfield II. You'd probably have to watch some replays... HBO often puts the scores up after each round in their replay of a controversial decision.

 

Yeah searching for the lewis-holy cards got me about 7 results for the Pac-Bradley cards on google image but that was about as close as I got

 

Surely in mikE's 3rd example, Bill wins the round.

And stevie, did you really tot up the Pacquiao - Bradley scores with majority scoring and Bradley still won ::

In which case it probably was something someone came up with specifically for Holy Vs Lewis 1, but in any other fight it doesn't make much difference ::

 

Yep, still won 7-5. ::

Would be funny if it made no difference in Holy/Lewis I too.

 

A good proper decision ray:


:scared2:

 

Majority scoring only addresses and fixes one concern...that a fighter gets credit for a round when the judge is in the minority. Majority scoring posits that a fighter should not get any more credit for losing a round 2-1 than he would losing it 3-0.

It can and does result in the 'right' fighter getting the 'right' decision. Sometimes.
It can and does result in the 'wrong' fighter getting the 'wrong' decision. Sometimes.
It does give more power to a bad or corrupt judge.
It can take away more power from a good judge.

And Lewis would have won the first Holy fight if majority scoring had been used 7-5.

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=2 width=450><TBODY><TR vAlign=center><TD colSpan=4 align=middle>[FONT=helvetica,arial]Official Judges' Scorecards </B>[/FONT]</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccc99 align=middle>Round </TD><TD bgColor=#cccc99 align=middle>Larry O'Connell </TD><TD bgColor=#cccc99 align=middle>Stanley Christoudoulou </TD><TD bgColor=#cccc99 align=middle>Eugenia Williams </TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#e5e5e5 vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=8><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD align=middle>
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Totals </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD bgColor=#e5e5e5 align=middle><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=8><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD align=middle>Holyfield
9
9
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
115 </TD><TD align=middle>Lewis
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
9
9
10
9
10
115 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD bgColor=#e5e5e5 align=middle><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=8><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD align=middle>Holyfield
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
9
113 </TD><TD align=middle>Lewis
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
116 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD bgColor=#e5e5e5 align=middle><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=8><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD align=middle>Holyfield
9
9
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
9
115 </TD><TD align=middle>Lewis
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
9
9
9
9
10
113 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

But majority scoring fails to address and appreciate the cause and only addresses the means of a 'bad' decision.

 

The cause is outwith it's means to fix, but it might end with better outcomes on average. My intuition is it would (marginally)

 

I found the Oscar-Tito cards. Tito would still have won (6-5-1). Jerry Roth's card was laughable, he had Tito 3-1 up after 4, then gave the last round to Oscar to even it up a bit.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/19/sports/sp-12139

 

I was going to say the same thing Hut, we should redo some known robberies or "disputed" decisions, and see if it makes a significant difference overall.

Looks like we're 1 and 2 so far.

 

I'm guessing it could convert a non-trivial percentage of bad wins to draws and bad draws to correct wins, but that'd be about it. I'd say the net effect might be small but positive.

Cant find Chavez-Whitaker anywhere.....any bad decisions from recent years you can think of? Cloud-Campillo.....(would've still come up with Cloud, 7-5)