Instant Boxing and Computer Scoring
by Mark Brimblecombe - 8 August 2007
We have to live with the wretched 'pooter' in amateur boxing in its current form, for as long as the AIBA has its rules. I'm all for computers (until recently I ran a computer business!), and see many good reasons for using computers for scoring in the sport (read on). But there are serious problems with the Chowdhry invented system, or rather the methodology for its operation...
As the AIBA say... "the fundamental principle being that only such blows are recorded for the final result that have been fed in simultaneously by at least three of the five Judges." This is where the idiocy (oops... idiosyncrasy) of the system lies, and only here in my opinion.
1. 'Simultaneously' is NOT simultaneous [meaning two or more events happening at the same time, instantaneously] but a time frame of up to one second. Now one second is a long time in my eyes as a spectator, and probably even longer in the eyes of the boxer! That means it is impossible for the boxer to score two points in rapid succession with two rapid fire punches... within one second. Correct me if I'm wrong... but it can be done, even by a heavyweight. I've even heard that the computer system can be configured so that 'simultaneous' means more than one second!
2. Related to this issue is that the time frame/window is constantly moving. So if your punch missed two of the judges (i.e. their finger on the button) early in a second, but Judge 3 scored the same shot later in this one second timeframe, then pray to God that those other two judges will see and score on another punch within the one second of Judge 3 who I've just mentioned. Then we have three judges agreeing within the same one second time frame, and you have a single point.
What should boxers do about this (tell me boxers and trainers)? Perhaps they should be encouraged to always double jab (thrice for good measure) rather than risk not scoring on a single punch jab. This will increase the chances of a single point, never two or three.
My view is that we should keep computers and chuck Chowdhry's so-called simultaneity method. Use the computer to record points, then add up all the points for each round. Last year I imported from France (for Rodney Boxing) a computer scoring system for boxing that provides the option for doing just that, and it is a great little machine (at less than half the price of the German... now Swiss machine used by the AIBA and BNZ). Within about 10 seconds of the final bell the referee is holding a printed (and so legible) result sheet with the individual scoring from each judge.
Actually I have a better idea, which comes from my observation that many of our current judges don't seemed to have trained for millions of hours on a playstation console, and my own lame attempt at scoring as a spectator. I just can't judge what two boxers are doing at the same. I've spend hours going over boxing video in slow motion (for disputing decisions at tournaments), and still I have difficulty... hence the replay to focus on one boxer at a time to score. There's my answer. Judges dedicated to pushing a blue button on their blue button only console, and other judges dedicated to pushing a red button on their red button only console. We only need twice as many judges at tournaments!
Last year I came across this article...
Has the Scoring Machine solved the Problems of AIBA? - from boxingspecial.org (July 2005)
There is a lot of
braggadocio in AIBA about the scoring machine and the electronic
scoring system and how they allegedly helped solve the crucial
problem in amateur boxing. It goes without saying that the AIBA
President views himself as the key figure in
this regard and that he has his
admirers and toadies preach this to the rest of the world.
It is true though that, at least for a while, the scoring machine
helped improve judging. The system which consists of the individual
scores of each of the five judges and a combined score that is made
up of the correct blows recorded by at least three of the five
judges within a one-second time window, has made it more difficult
for outsiders to understand a decision. Glaringly lopsided decisions
that are clearly recognizable as such have become rare or, to put it
in a different way, the electronic scoring system serves to
camouflage rigged decisions and to make them seem objective. Hardly
any party that found itself at the wrong end of a decision and felt
it had been robbed has ever bothered to lodge a protest. What is the
sense of protesting a seemingly objective decision that has been
produced by a computer? Those who argue along these lines disregard
the fact that the computer only combines what has been entered
within a given time window by at least three judges who often are
not exactly the best.
Yet the problem of amateur boxing lies deeper. The fact of the
matter is that the scoring machine – or should we rather say the
electronic scoring system – only records and adds up the blows and
that has changed boxing entirely. The beauty of the sport that
manifests itself in a broad variety of blow combinations, along with
technique and tactics has got lost as it is no longer rewarded by
points. Delivering blows to the target area, as many and as rapidly
as possible, that is what the sport is all about today. Today’s
boxing style gives preference to ‘long hands that reach their
target’, if possible the head and clearly discernible for the
judges. Body shots have become rare and so has infighting. Technical
skills such as feinting, breaking away from the opponent by hitting
from close range and adroit manoeuvring are often missing
altogether. What matters today are hits, hits in rapid succession.
To prevent the worst, the 15-points difference rule was invented,
which soon had to be raised to a 20-points difference.
Notwithstanding that, we are witnessing early stoppages en masse (at
the E.U. championships 43% of the bouts were stopped on RSC-O). And
the AIBA leaders proudly report that no KOs occurred.
The rules aimed at protecting the athletes’ health, e.g. compulsory
use of headgear, the rounds having been shortened to 2 minutes each,
along with the scoring machine lead to spectators and television
staying away from amateur boxing competitions. But boxing is a
fighting sport. The reason why spectators have turned to
professional boxing is because there they still find those qualities
of a fighting sport that they miss in amateur boxing. Hence the
scoring machine and the current system of judging have not only
failed to solve the problems of the sport, they have further
deepened the crisis in which amateur boxing finds itself today.
Feedback/Comments
Hi Mark once again, this is a great article on the merits of
computer scoring. It is true, there are certain noddies who
shouldn't be allowed near any colored button (color blind) because
of the injustices and harm done to some boxers from time to time. It
can be heart wrenching when you know and I know and most studied
observers know a boy has won a fight only to be subjected to a
(seemingly political) countback where he gets pipped at the post.
The other seeming outrage to the gentle coaching spirit is when you
know your boy is losing a fight but is still very much in the action
only to find after the very first round the scores are so lop-sided
there is virtually no point in continuing. I have seen fighters
visibly wither up and die right there, and no amount of dialogue or
coaching angle can bring life to the party again. I have known boys
who gave their all, one last crack sort of thing, only to be dealt a
knockout punch by these sometimes stupid bloody technical
apparatus's which seem so out of line but you can't argue with. A
lot of these obvious injustices seem to occur at major events where
there are five button wielding fiends instead of the easier
manageable three. Admitably it boils down to human error and
political judgement as it did before the invent of these things, but
at least you had someone to argue with! Not so now. And make a noise
or protest from the corner and bare the consequences of a stiff
finger to the door. Perhaps your idea of a double up on Judges (or
perhaps 3 aside) with single judges working single colors is the
answer, at least that would give the coach an identity to work
with instead of a computer who won't respond in kind.
Email me your comments about this article [and the above feedback]. Click Here.