Chambers2 wrote:2 out of the 3 judges would have to score it incorrectly to get the wrong result rather than 1 out of 1. The judges don't have to worry about reffing the fight either
Would there have been as much outrage if Fury vs McDermott had 3 judges, instead of only the referee judging, and 2 out of the 3 judges had scored the fight to Fury by a wide margin?
I'm not saying this will wipe out all bad decisions from the sport, just that it will reduce them. If Fury-McDermot had 3 judges we'd have probably got the correct result IMO
So one would assume that the BBBofC are also acknowledging how much is at stake when boxers fight for the Eliminators and the English title (Does this apply to Celtic, Welsh and Scottish titles too ??) because 3 judges is a better move ?
In that case, can some referee's also start treating such contests with the same importance and give both participants a fair crack before halting fights too soon.
By the way oliverfennell, I understand the point you make about "getting by" but Britain has one of the most highly organised and structured boards of control in the world. Perhaps some of these "getting by" places would have better standards if they had followed some of the BBBofC's practices.
THEBUTCH wrote:By the way oliverfennell, I understand the point you make about "getting by" but Britain has one of the most highly organised and structured boards of control in the world. Perhaps some of these "getting by" places would have better standards if they had followed some of the BBBofC's practices.
Well, to use some obvious First World comparisons, the US, Canada, Japan and Germany aren't struggling financially with a three-judge system.
