He hasn't been hiding and his comment wasn't unsolicited. He wasn't complaining, they asked his opionion and he gave it. I think his point is that there may have been some bad judging in recent Olympiads, but was it enough to completely revamp the system that had been in place for so long?
In recent Olympiads? Last time that system was in place was 1988, don't you think bringing that up now is a little late? See, the thing is, the 1988 Olympics were a
huge scandal. At that time it was clear that yes, they had to change things radically. Maybe this guy is talking about this stuff because a scandal that is 16 years old seems a little smaller now? What tghis guy should realize is that things were actually worse in 1988 than they are now.
To sum up: Yes, they had to do something drastic at that point. Whether they did the right thing, or could have done something else is a moot point now, what's relevant now is if we're at another point where something has to be done (actually they
are changing things. Whether it'll be for the better remains to be seen).
That's not the only problem. They are inconsistent even within a bout with what gets scored and what doesn't. I'm not expecting them to be perfect, but it shouldn't be as noticeable as it has been that the same punches may or may not get scored (for either boxer).
And my answer to that would be that, that is because of the ridiculously low scores. If they pressed the buttons more liberally, like two-three years ago, the scores would be more consistent.
Ok, I understand that, but my question is what makes you (or anyone) think that three judges reflexes are going to consistently be within 1 second or 1.2 seconds of each other? We aren't even necessarily talking about elite athletes with finely tuned hand-eye coordination. It seems like that difference would add to what appear to a lot of the coaches, boxers, fans and 'experts' as scoring blows that aren't scored.
I never said I think that, because obviously that is not the case. However, if scores are higher, that will even out a lot. When a fight is scored 3-3 over four rounds like the Zhiming-Oubaali fight, then It becomes much more random what counts and what doesn't. When the score is 25-20, then that evens out.
The real problem here is that human beings are fallible. as long as scoring is doen by human beings, you'll have controversy, bad decisions, even cheating. Is the scoring system in the pros perfect? Not by a long shot, and furthermore, criteria for what you need to do to win are fuzzy and qualitative, which means
moresubjective than pushing a button when you see a punch land. Subjectivity is not a good thing in this context.
I don't understand this point. Do you mean that there are target numbers for how many times a judge should register a scoring punch? Should the boxer determine that number?
No, I mean that they have changed the guidelines of what the judges should be pushing the buttons for, to a
much more conservative number. Here's a link to the results from Athens. Look how much higher the scores were:
http://amateur-boxing.strefa.pl/Champio ... s2004.html
What different between then and now? The pace has not gone down from 30 to 40 points per boxer in a match, to an average of less than 20
combined, the judges have simply been told to push the buttons less.
As for a target number, I think they need to hit a certain percentage of the actual points scored. Which could be reviewed on video after, and the judges scores could be held up against what is seen on the screen. It is quite obvious to me that 90% of the fights at the Olympics have ended up with a score that is nowhere near 50% of the actual landed punches. That gap is too big. That is what ruins it at the moment IMO.
