Boxing IOC Olympic Qualifier 1 2024

[copravolley 258]

2 hours ago, Illya said:

So tomorrow we will lose our boxers in Italy. Really bad level from Ukrainians + not transparent judging = only 1 quota in Paris 

Ukrainian women in particular have been doing very poorly recently. In the old days it was the strongest nation in Europe next to Russia, and now they are losing to Poles and other European nations. Maybe they don't have money to prepare?

[Ogreman 355]

I mostly agree that the current scoring system doesn't work effectively. For me I would just change the default score for a round to 10-8 and then only close rounds be scored 10-9 and one sided rounds 10-7 rather than the current system where unless you batter the shit out of someone for three minutes straight, the score will be 10-9. This would obviously deviate from pro boxing and make the sytem more complex and being simple to understand is the primary logic behind the current scoring system but I think it would make fights more interesting and should make judging decisions more accurate

 

Yes, the judges here are just bad, but there were only probably a couple of decisions they actually got wrong today though (Csemez  3-2 Gonzalez  and Ovezov  3-2 Shahbakhsh  are the two that spring to mind but I would need to watch them again to be sure). Obviously I only saw half of a lot of fights and missed some entirely but this was the sense I got. I think the IOC is kind of using the qualifying tournaments to figure out who the bad judges are so hopefully by the Olympics the judging will be closer to competent but obviously using the qualifying tournaments to do this is far from ideal.

 

 

2 hours ago, dodge said:

That and a warning being too big of a punishment.

Anyway this is what I actually wanted to address because the comentators made this mistake too. This statement is sort of true but also not really true at all. In actuality one warning (point deduction) can almost never change the result of a fight. Two and ye you have to win all three rounds for at least 3 judges to win the fight which is obviously pretty devastating but one deduction doesn't really do anything because of how ties are scored. 

 

So disregarding 10-8s typically the possible scores are 30-27, 29-28, 28-29 and 27-30. If a judge gives all three rounds to the same boxer points deductions can never effect anything (3rd points deduction is a disqualification) so the score changes to 30-26 or 27-29 (30-25 and 27-28 with 2 warnings) not effecting the result at all. If a boxer loses 28-29 and has a points deduction then it just changes to 27-29 and again no impact on the outcome of the fight. The confusing one is when a boxer wins two rounds and has a points deduction in which the score does indeed change to 28-28 but whats crucial here is the rules regarding tied scorecards.

 

I don't think this is widely understood very well but the rule regarding tied scores is if the judges who have it tied can effect the outcome, then they go back to those judges and they pick a winner. Basically if the tied scores matter the relevant judges pick a winner and as such you can never end a fight with the score being 2-0, 2-1 or 1-0. 

 

I'll use an actual example to explain this. So lets look at one of today's 57kg fights Carlo Paalam  vs Andrey Bonilla . This fight ended 3-1 to Paalam after Bonilla got a point deduction for what was basically a body slam. (Paalam seemed to hurt his shoulder so hopefully he is ok) (Also its a while since I have seen a boxer as dirty as Bonilla. Would not want to have to box him.) So the judges scores ended up being 29-27 (29-28), 29-27 (29-28), 27-29 (27-30), 28-28 (28-29), 29-27 (29-28) (score with no deduction in brackets) where judges 1,2 and 5 had Paalam winning two rounds and losing one. Judge 3 having Bonilla winning all three and judge 4 having Bonilla winning 2 and losing one round. With the points deduction obviously meaning that judge 4's score was tied. All the other judges results were unaffected by the deduction. Because judge 4's score couldn't change the outcome of the fight his scorecard was simply left as a tie. If he was asked he almost certainly would have given Bonilla the fight given that he gave him 2 rounds and Paalam only one but that would still only make the score 3-2 so it is just left as a tie and the fight's score is 3-1.

 

If for example one more judge went in favour of Bonilla the scores in the Paalam Bonilla fight would therfore be 29-27, 29-27, 27-29, 28-28, 28-28. This fight would not end 2-1 in favour of Paalam. The two tied scores, in this hypothethical case judge 4 and 5, could cumalatively change the winner of the fight so they go back to judge 4 and 5 and they both pick a winner. Again, crucially for a fight to be 28-28 the boxer who received a points deduction has to have won two rounds for that judge and therefore that judge logically would almost always pick that boxer to win. In this scenario the score with a points deduction would be 2-3 in favour of Bonilla assuming judge 4 and 5 are logical and if the points deduction never happened the score would also be 2-3 in favour of Bonilla.

 

To emphasize this any fight where with tied scores the fight initially is scored 2-0, 2-1 or 1-0 the tied judges choose a victor and because the only way to have a points deduction and a tied score (not including 10-8 scenarios) is where the boxer who received a deduction won 2 rounds for the tied judge/ judges. Logically one point deduction should never change the outcome of a fight. 

 

Unfortunately for my argument and the reason I had to caveat everything above with almosts is there are occasionally counter examples and one actually happened today. In the Susan Aguas  vs Marjona Savrieva  fight at W50kg, Savrieva picked up a points deduction in the third round and the scores ended up being 30-26, 29-27, 28-28, 28-28 and 28-28 as a result. As explained above Aguas doesn't win the fight 2-0, the three tied judges could and should have changed the final outcome so judge 3,4 and 5 choose their winner. Judge 3 and 5 of course chose Savrieva having both given her 2 rounds. Whats strange though is on this occasion judge 4 despite giving Savrieva the first 2 rounds and Aguas only the third decided that Aguas won the fight which as I say doesn't really make much logical sense. If judge 4 believed Aguas was that dominant in the third round then that round should have been scored 10-8 by said judge. I think I have only ever seen this scenario of illogical tied decisions happen once or twice.

 

Apologies for probably overexplaining this a bit but it is quite counterintuitive and the morale of the story is barring stupidity or a second non standard score ( second points deduction/ 10-8 round) one solitary warning despite seemingly changing the scores a lot should never change the ultimate outcome of a fight.

 

Just finally there is funny quirk of this system where if you win a fight for 3 judges and 2 have it tied (be it a points deduction or a 10-8 round) you would win a split decision 3-0. However if you win a fight for just 1/2 judges and the other 3/4 have it tied. The tied judges are then evaluated again and if they all give you the fight you would then win a unanimous decision 5-0.

Obviously this doesn't effect the result or anything but I just think its funny that potentially winning one less round for 1/2 judges in rare cases can actually turn a split decision win into a unanimous win.

This happened in the Maud Van der Toorn  vs Jennifer Fernadez  fight where after Van der Toorn had a points deduction 1 judge had her winning (having given her all three rounds) and the other 4 judges had it tied but having given her 2 rounds gave her the fight. If she had convinced two more judges to give her all 3 rounds (Not that she deserved 3 rounds, Fernandez deservedly won round 2) she would have the fight 3-0 and it would have been a split decision and not a unanimous one.

Edited March 9 by Ogreman

[hckošice 14,822]

2 hours ago, Ogreman said:

Yes, the judges here are just bad, but there were only probably a couple of decisions they actually got wrong today though (Csemez  3-2 Gonzalez

 

Never heard in my life about boxing judges which would favour a Slovak boxer over USA (especially a former world champion and kinda USA poster boy.)

 

+ I watched the bout life on Olympic Channel, and you know, when even both their announcers (usually USA biased) called it fair call I am quite surprised to read this from you. but, Sure, ok, it is your oppinion and you are entitled to have it.

 

Bandi won both first 2 rounds fairly (again both OC commentators admitted it), in the last Gonzalez was clearly much much better but it came too late for him and Bandi knew after the 2 rounds he do not need to risk anymore and at the end he did the job and kept his win.

 

Only Gonzalez is here to blame for being extremely passive in both first rounds and underestimated Bandi, definitely not the judges, which in opposite were surprisingly pretty fair and not "fall" under the name of the favorite and stronger/more important country.

Edited March 9 by hckošice

[heywoodu 15,135]

I saw there's a surprising amount of Dutch athletes still in it, so it got me slightly interested  Is there like a daily schedule or something to be found somewhere?

[Federer91 2,793]

2 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

I saw there's a surprising amount of Dutch athletes still in it, so it got me slightly interested  Is there like a daily schedule or something to be found somewhere?

https://boxing.athlete365.org/boxing-road-to-paris-2024/1st-world-qualification-tournament/

 

At the bottom are the schedules, results etc.

[avlar 372]

10 hours ago, dodge said:

Refs don’t give any scores. Judges do.

 

It’s a very hard sport to judge, and generally they do a good job. The majority of people watching on TV have no idea what they’re looking at. It most certainly isn’t random. 
 

10 points for winning a round take all the drama out of most 3rd rounds. That’s the biggest issue. That and a warning being too big of a punishment.

 

Maybe if some countries have the balls to leave the IBA the sport can revert back to point per blow scoring and stop trying to compete with the pro ranks. 
 

99% of “robbery” calls are just sore losers whinging IMO

IMHO AIBA driven boxing was happy enough even to use that 1% at the right moment. Ut was enough to "fix" even Olympic medals.

[avlar 372]

9 hours ago, copravolley said:

Ukrainian women in particular have been doing very poorly recently. In the old days it was the strongest nation in Europe next to Russia, and now they are losing to Poles and other European nations. Maybe they don't have money to prepare?

It is not only the question of money. The war influences much more.

 

To be successfull enough in sport one should be fully focused on the tournament. But it is almost impossible because the first thing Ukrainian athletes do when they can - they check news to know what cities were hit by russians and if their relatives are alive.

 

The other issue - sport facillities. A lot were destroyed. And a lot of sport and recreation objectes are at the occupied territories. Some of them are used by russian athletes themselves to prepare for international competitions. 

 

Thus it is one more important reason to suspend russian athletes and why it is fair. Thieves cannot benefit from robbery. But even those who did not steal something themselves are not allowed to benefot from stolen property.

 

[Illya 511]

9 hours ago, copravolley said:

Ukrainian women in particular have been doing very poorly recently. In the old days it was the strongest nation in Europe next to Russia, and now they are losing to Poles and other European nations. Maybe they don't have money to prepare?

No, because Anastasia Kovalchuk 2 years ago upset unknown noname Stanimira Petrova at the European Champs (who is she, I don't know ), and became the champion. So something is definitely going wrong way with the start of war because now our girls have bigger chances than men

[Josh 10,501]

What a performance by  Delgado 

[Josh 10,501]

Quota for  Chelsea Heijnen in women’s 60kg

 

@Jinzha @CCB @heywoodu