Boxing at the Summer Olympic Games Paris 2024

[Faramir 366]

3 judges gave the win to red. 2 judges gave the win to blue. It's the number of judges that counts, not if they considered it a clear, big win or a very close one.

[ChandlerMne 1,038]

1 minute ago, Faramir said:

3 judges gave the win to red. 2 judges gave the win to blue. It's the number of judges that counts, not if they considered it a clear, big win or a very close one.

Again, how both getting 28 counts as victory for anyone?

[heywoodu 15,153]

2 minutes ago, ChandlerMne said:

Again, how both getting 28 counts as victory for anyone?

Because you need a winner. In professional boxing, it could be a draw, which is always unfortunate, but a valid result. Here it can't, because if it's a draw, nobody can progress to the next round.

 

So if you're a judge and you have your paper in front of you that says 28-28, you need to choose whoever you think was the winner (separate from whatever the other judges have scored).

[ChandlerMne 1,038]

1 minute ago, heywoodu said:

Because you need a winner. In professional boxing, it could be a draw, which is always unfortunate, but a valid result. Here it can't, because if it's a draw, nobody can progress to the next round.

 

So if you're a judge and you have your paper in front of you that says 28-28, you need to choose whoever you think was the winner (separate from whatever the other judges have scored).

I cant express words to show my dissatisfaction with all this charade. 

I can only hope that this travesty ends ASAP. Even baseball would be better than this "sport". At least everything is obvious.

[Faramir 366]

9 minutes ago, ChandlerMne said:

Again, how both getting 28 counts as victory for anyone?

because the rule says there is no draw, there must be a decision. Like in fencing you can win by priority (which is a coin flip, 50/50) despite a draw. Or in taekwondo I remember some titles won "by superiority" after a draw, and so on.

 

Edited July 31 by Faramir

[heywoodu 15,153]

19 minutes ago, ChandlerMne said:

I cant express words to show my dissatisfaction with all this charade. 

Oh I agree  

 

But that is, unfortunately, how it works...

[nenad 442]

55 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

Because you need a winner. In professional boxing, it could be a draw, which is always unfortunate, but a valid result. Here it can't, because if it's a draw, nobody can progress to the next round.

 

So if you're a judge and you have your paper in front of you that says 28-28, you need to choose whoever you think was the winner (separate from whatever the other judges have scored).

Yeah, we get it but it's still a dumb rule when you have 2 judges that do have a clear winner. I mean personal impression of a judge should come into play if it's draw all around, not if it's 2:0 and all 3 judges voting for clearly inferior fighter is a travesty. 

 

If anyone watched the match this was 5:0 match. 9:10, 10:9 and 9:10. And with chinese having deduction point it should've been 27:29 on all scorecards. And I can accept one judge being an exemption, but 3..... Travesty. 

Edited July 31 by nenad

[Epic Failure 355]

My biggest problem with the system is that the 'draw' judges are taking priority over the positive judges. It feels like the other way around is more logical.

 

If all five judges were to score it a draw (or 3 and the other two were split), then the current system makes more sense. At that point, they have to choose a winner somehow.

 

Boxing just gets sillier and sillier.

[dodge 1,024]

The draw judges aren’t taking priority. They have the same weight. If one of those votes blue instead of red it’s a win for blue

 

I I think what some are trying to argue is the penalty for a warning should be bigger. That’s a different argument altogether 

[nenad 442]

1 minute ago, dodge said:

The draw judges aren’t taking priority. They have the same weight. If one of those votes blue instead of red it’s a win for blue

 

I I think what some are trying to argue is the penalty for a warning should be bigger. That’s a different argument altogether 

It's plain stupid. 

 

And what I argue is that it should've been 0:5.