Have you discussed this before? Is Britain the only place where the thrid man also judges a contest? I don't think it would stop dodgy decsions but I don't understand why we don't have three judges like nearly any other country I can think I'm I wrong about this?
Chris the fighter wrote:Have you discussed this before? Is Britain the only place where the thrid man also judges a contest? I don't think it would stop dodgy decsions but I don't understand why we don't have three judges like nearly any other country I can think I'm I wrong about this?
I think we are the only place in the world. Yes, we need to come into line. There's still bad decisions with three officials but it looks dodgy that we persist on scoring British and Commonwealth title fights with one. The Board allow three officials for crummy IBO and WBU title fights in this country, but not for fights for their more prestigious belt. Silly.
I love the argument that the referee is best placed to judge the fight, what so he's best placed to judge the bout, and also referee it at the same time? What a load of bollocks.
REAL_DEAL wrote:
i was watching Calzaghe vs Bobbie Joe Edwards and the final score was 75 1/2 to 80 points
Oh, the old half point rounds. Yeah, that was crazy.
when did that stop?
No idea to be honest. In my opinion, half of the problem with one judge scoring in this country is they announce the score. The referee often gets the right man you know. But then they announce the score and you see cornermen shaking their head and staring at the ref.
Yes, leave it to three judges.
Not only that, but its very unclear about the docking of points. Often the fighter doesn't even know he's been docked points lets alone the ringside commentator.
If the BBBoC are unwilling to stop Referees judging the fights, why not have two judges aswell as the ref? Could cut out some of the dodgy decisions we've been seeing of late, and keep the board happy at the same time.
