Should we have a 20-point-must system in boxing?

By Janne Romppainen

08.04 - Couple of decades ago the rounds of the fights were not scored but the winner of a boxing match was the fighter who won more rounds. A round stolen by one or two punches was worth as much as a round in which the fighter knocked his opponent down twice. This kind of scoring was understandably found unfair and so the 10-point-must system was developed. In this present system scoring a knockdown gives the fighter an extra point.

This renewal was a good idea but it didn’t solve all the problems. There are still many controversial decisions today. Often after questionable decisions the ones that are in the eye of the storm are the judges. They are accused to be inferior or sometimes even bribed.

One thing that many people don’t come to think of is that the cause of these so-called bad decisions is not necessarily the judgement but it might be the scoring system. If there is very quiet round where neither fighter does much of anything, two skilled judges can easily score it differently. Now if there are six or eight such rounds in the same fight, the scorecards can be dramatically different. Other fighter may be able to steal rounds by making a spurt in the end of every round and so a match that overall seems to be very evenly matched can turn out as a lopsided victory for the ‘stealer´.

I think that the scoring of a round should still be defined. There should be a difference between a round that is clearly dominated by the other fighter and one that is won by very narrow margin. This could be done for example by changing the scoring system from the 10-point to a 20-point-must system.

Let me take an example from the heavyweight title fight between Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis in March 1999. Many people were enraged by the draw verdict of the fight as most saw Lewis being the clear winner. And I, like many, thought that Lewis had earned the victory. But as I have watched the replay, I think Lewis clearly won six rounds, whereas Holyfield clearly took three. The last three rounds could in my opinion go either way, giving them all to Holyfield would not be wrong and neither it would be to mark them all for Lewis. So, in one sense, I could have accepted both 117-111 victory for Lewis as well as a 114-114 draw.

But if you could mark a round 20-18 if it is a clear one (without a knockdown) and 20-19 if it is very close, that fight wouldn't have turned out as a draw. Lewis takes six rounds 20-18 (the fifth could have been even 20-17 as Holyfield was badly wobbled), The Real Deal gets three by the same margin, and the last three go 20-19 either way, so Lewis wins at least by three points.

I believe that this kind of a scoring system might help in judging the bouts. It would also reward a fighter who wins his rounds big and not with just by punch or two. This could also prevent a fighter from stealing rounds with a 20 second barrage in the end of the round because that wouldn’t give him such a big edge.

Of course no kind of scoring system will help if the judges are home-friendly or just unskilled, but this renewal might sort things out a bit.

Comments? To: janneromppainen@hotmail.com