10 Point Mustn’t: Is a Reform Needed for Boxing Scoring?

Every combat sport has its own method of scoring points. Boxing is, of course, no exception. The  original Marquess of Queensberry rules were drawn up in 1865 by John Graham Chambers, a member  of the British Amateur Athletic Club. The code was given the endorsement of John Sholto Douglas,  ninth Marquess of Queensberry, and were published in 1867. They began to gain traction and  popularity especially under such legendary transition fighters as Jem Mace, the “Gypsy” of England  and John L. Sullivan, the “Boston Strong Boy” of Roxbury, Massachusetts, USA.

These rules have evolved a bit over time, but in a very similar form, have governed modern gloved  pugilism since their inception. The “10-Point Must System” came into use after introduction by the  WBC (World Boxing Council) in 1968. Its precepts for scoring a given round are comprised of four  elements: clean punching (including both quantity and force; the primary consideration), effective  aggressiveness (forcing or “making” the fight while landing punches; generally the one advancing on  the opponent. This is usually considered the second most important element), ring generalship  (controlling the pace and flow of a fight), and defense (blocking or avoiding punches).

In truth, though, even today’s 10-Point Must scheme is poorly used and grossly inefficient. Most  rounds are scored 10-9, and a boxer needs to batter the other all around the ring in order to “earn” a  10-8, whereas in reality, a one-sided frame should be scored in a one-sided manner. Hypothetically,  and in this writer’s opinion, a canto in which one fighter really dominates the action could be scored

as disparately as 10-4, or more so, even without a knockdown. The system has been misused for so  long by professional boxing judges, however, that such misapplication has become entrenched.

A case in point is the recent Oleksandr Usyk-Tyson Fury heavyweight unification scrap. In the  fateful ninth frame, Usyk nailed his gargantuan foe with a sweeping left that dazed Fury and sent him  back into the ropes. A follow-up by the Ukrainian rendered the Brit like a sailor on a three-day pass:  a staggering target with no equilibrium. The latter reeled from one corner to another, finally coming  to rest in an angle of the ring, with the ropes supporting him. This, according to the rules of Boxing,  constituted a knockdown, and was called as such by Referee Mark Nelson. It seems the most any  judge, official or otherwise, gave Usyk was a 10-8 round. Of course, Nelson might have waved the  fight off as well, but that’s another story.

So the question is, what does a 10-6 round look like to such (or most) people? What would it take  to be granted one? Would a fighter need to floor their opponent five times and beat hell out of them the rest of the inning? This seems ridiculous. A flash knockdown should be worth one point, while a  damaging knockdown should probably earn two. Administering a beating in a given frame should in  itself give the fistic applicator at least a 10-8, but is more worthy of a 10-7 or 10-6 score, in my humble  opinion. Scoring it 10-9 only constitutes a ten percent advantage. One might determine what  percentage of a round the winner captured, and judge the scoring of it accordingly.

Some have suggested starting each stanza at 0-0 and awarding one point to a boxer who wins it by  a shade, two points if they clearly take it and rock the other, and so on. I wouldn’t disagree with this,  and feel it would be a big improvement over the dominant system as currently used. And, if a judge  can’t quite decide who to give one of those really close rounds to, I mean, one of the “photo-finish”  deals that looks like a toss-up—then call it 10-10—a draw! It’s far better than guessing.

It should be said that the 10-Point Must system is, at least, better than the old NYSAC method,  which gave rounds to boxers instead of points, and used a backup “5-point must” tally to decide the  winner in the event of a draw. Some rounds are close, while others, obviously, are anything but. It is  a gross injustice to give Fighter A the victory because he shaded seven rounds yet lost the other five  to Fighter B by several parsecs and multiple knockdowns. Logic has its place in all sports.

Late boxing announcer Ed Derian

Now, will such an overhaul, reform, or simply proper use of the scoring system, ever occur? It is  highly unlikely, but sorely needed. Of course, any system is only as good as its honest application.  Unless the corruption in Boxing can somehow be mitigated (heaven knows it will never be  eliminated!), raunchy decisions will always be a frequent plague. All things considered, however,  verdicts arrived at by competent use of sensible scoring (as suggested above) should result in a greater  number of reasonable outcomes.

References:

1) https://www.mrdenizates.com/blog/the-10-point-must-system

2) https://www.dazn.com/en-US/news/boxing/how-is-boxing-scored-points-rules-scores-and deductions-used-by-judges-and-referees/zncunu9sov881vkqqvvqlsu67