OT - Olympic boxing and its stupid scoring system

Submitted by Gulogulo37 on August 10th, 2012 at 12:54 PM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetorch/2012/08/09/158529697/boxing-maths-and-aftermaths-why-similar-scores-are-a-mean-system "But let's say that one of the judges who gave the boxer a 0 changed his mind and gave him a 3. The boxer would then have a similar score and would be awarded a 3 for the round. In other words, if a judge INCREASED his score, the boxer's score would DECREASE."

 

No one in charge of this stuff realized what a terrible idea it is? lol

Comments

mGrowOld

August 10th, 2012 at 1:07 PM ^

I'm sorry but any organized activity with a judge, not a clock and scoreboard is a exhibition, not a sport.  Diving, boxing (unless a knockout) and gymnastics are nothing more than glorified artistic demonstrations and should be treated as such.  I am not saying the participants are not athletic as hell but PLEASE stop calling them sports because they're not.  

Perhaps we simply start an artististic category and simply call it such.

reshp1

August 10th, 2012 at 1:38 PM ^

I don't know if I'd go that far. How else do you compete in things like that if not a judge? I don't think there's any question that diving, gymnastics, hell even figure skating are athletic acheivements. I think you can design a judging system that's pretty objective and less swayed by human variance. The diving system comes to mind where there are eight judges and they take away the top and bottom two scores as outliers. You can also instruct judges to evaluate objective criteria of each element of a routine (legs straight, amount of splash) rather than overall impression. I agree boxing scoring seems to be the least transparent and prone to shenanigans, but that quite the broad brush to paint all judging based sports with.

mGrowOld

August 10th, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^

I don't agree.  When you have judges determine who won or lost by simply how they "feel" about someone's performance (see scoring rules - ice dancing) you have a performance not unlike an art exhibition.  Someone liked one person's artistic rendering better than someone else's so they "won" the gold but in no way is that a sport.  And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that....but damn it.....call it for what it is....an artistic exhibition....and don't get upset when the Russian artistic judge favors one type of art...errr..."performance" over another.  

 

 

reshp1

August 10th, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^

That's just it though, most judging isn't a general "feeling." There are criteria set forth for determining scores. It's just that in these sports, a human is needed to evaluate if the criteria is met or not, not unlike refs deciding possession for incomplete pass vs fumble or control of the ball on completion vs incomplete pass, or calling fouls. Even swimming, there are judges that determine if the competitors are using legal strokes and turns, which can be very subjective. Are there sports that can be evaluated purely objectively by time, distance, etc? Sure. But the vast majority of sports involves some element of relying on human judgement.

MaizeNBlu628

August 10th, 2012 at 3:56 PM ^

Just playing devil's advocate here, but couldn't you say that referees in most sports have to "feel" or interrupt what is going on in play? For example, there are many instances in soccer where a ref's decision on a player falling down in the box can determine the entire outcome of the game. In football, people say holding happens on 90% of the plays, so the ref has to "feel" which ones he'll actually call. I understand that football and soccer are still ultimately decided by the scoreboard, but human judgment still plays a vital part.

How do you feel about the way fencing is done? (Minus the whole korean fencer losing with 1 sec thing) They use some high tech gear to show when a player has been struck, but still some referee decisions are included.

MGoPacquiao

August 10th, 2012 at 1:09 PM ^

What's unfortunate is this system was the solution to Roy Jones Jr. being robbed in Seoul. So, I'm guessing it will be just as bad when it goes back to a 10-point must. Teddy Atlas going crazy over the judging has provided the best comedic moments of the olympics.

mGrowOld

August 10th, 2012 at 2:53 PM ^

In the the most simplistic terms possible:

Schoolyard fight: kid who hits the other kid the hardest and makes him cry is winner.  Panel of judges (other kids) easily score the winner and there is NO debate over the winner ever.

Pro boxing: hispanic man hits other hispanic man alot until he either falls down and cant get up or until he bleeds so much the ref gets grossed out and stops it or the fight ends after 12 rounds.  Panel of friends of guys connected to people in Las Vegas usually determines the winner correctly.

Olymic boxing: two guys from random country's touch each other as often as humanly possible in 9 minutes.  The person deemed to have touched the other guy the most frequently is determined to be the winner regardless of how hard he is hit by the other guy.  Panel of judges almost always gets it wrong.

Flamebait

August 10th, 2012 at 2:52 PM ^

Boxing was my first love and I did it for over a decade.  I watch almost every ppv event and friday and tuesday night fights.  That being said I've watched maybe 10 minutes of olympic boxing.  It's just not legit.

ZelmaFlores

November 8th, 2012 at 9:28 PM ^

That's really a stupid one. They're ruining the momentum and the credibility of being a good host for sports like boxing. I'd better prepare all stuff that I need for the upcoming marquez vs pacquiao this December and I swear this would be a great match once again.