Majority scoring system

It doesn't matter what it 'fixes' because the idea that a fighter can win a fight on all 3 individual judges' cards and still lose the fight is so contrary to what we are used to that it could never be accepted as better.

We're dealing with the 'net' benefit which is something that has clearly been proven to be incapable of understanding around here.

Personally, I don't think there is a net benefit to majority scoring. I think majority scoring is stupid and it sucks. But if you are going to make the argument, it has to be done with the net benefit in mind because it certainly isn't superior in all ways.

 

Fuck you, cunt. We're trying to have a friendly conversation here.

 

It still can be a net friendly conversation despite your feelings of inadequacy.

 

collegE.

 

Leaving aside your condescending cuntishness again, every single card I've looked at (6 or 7 now), ends up closer to consensus opinion under majority scoring or about the same. If we take consensus opinion to be correct (which i basically do), or at least take decisions in line with it to be beneficial to the sport, that's a net benefit.

Fuck knows what happened with Harris-Robinson, but there was a point deduction and a KD in that and maybe accommodating things like that is a wrinkle that would needs addressed with the system?

 

I'm being a cunt because steve_dave believed I was referring to him? If the shoe fits, I guess.

Look at what you are doing. You can't just look at a few decisions and think it's an adequate representation. Look at split decisions where the 'right' guy won and see how many of those would have turned out differently, not the ones where the 'wrong' guy won.

Obviously, I'm ignoring the point that we have no reason to believe that any person in this discussion is the right person to determine 'right' victor from 'wrong' victor, but just do it for yourself and see what happens.

However, what is your point? To determine if the 'right' guy should have won more convincingly or if the 'wrong' guy should not have gotten the decision or if the 'right' guy should have gotten the decision?

I would ask that if you are going to go to the trouble to do this, you might as well post the results. Just like understanding net benefit fails around here, the idea of backing up your bullshit with some cites also fails around here, usually. And no, I'm not referring to you. The people I'm referring to will probably know it and call me a cunt.

 

How about Rios Vs Abril? That was a highway robbery of the highest order.

Or even not robberies but close, disputed decisions like Pacquiao vs Marquez 2 and 3. I'd be interested to see how fights like those come out with majority scoring.

 

I didn't think you were referring to me. You're being a cunt because you're a cunt.

 

cunT

 

I agree, I'm all for trying new ideas to fix boxing scoring problems, but majority scoring doesn't seem like it would fix anything. If you take a monkey who simply writes 10-9 for fighter A every round, he would have a far greater impact on majority scoring than in the traditionnal way. Not that I'm really against it, but I fail to really see how it could avoid scoring fiasco

 

Nah...you're being a cunt because that's just what you are.

 

::

 

A big part of me thinks that none of this would matter if judges actually scored fights properly in the first place, rather than making absurd decisions and/or being paid off.

MTF

 

Precisely. Most systems are largely infallible once corruption and malice are excluded from the equation. Outside of that, close contentious but otherwise legitimately-rendered decisions are to be welcomed.