How to fix judging is boxing

[ace_bubble]

Well we again had a controversial decision in boxing today.
Many at ring side felt Golovkin won the fight or at best a draw.
However three judges who mater 2, gave the fight to Alvarez and one scoring a draw.
It was close decision either way and one cannot argue with the decision.

One way to resolve such a issue is simply include more in decision making. In older times we had something call newspaper decision. If a fight did not get resolved by stoppage, multiple sportswriters covering the event at ringside would arrive at consensus.

Now we don't have that type of decision any more, but we can always increase number of judges from 3 to have more people say in the process and a fighter not be at mercy of 3 people that matter.

Now in amateurs we have 5 people judging a contest and I suggest this to be the number of professional bouts too.
Title/unification bouts can have 7/9 judges judging the contest. Perhaps low level professional bouts can still have 3 judges where promoters cannot pay of more judges, however in title fights and fights of this scale I am sure promoters can afford 7/9 judges given whats at stake.

We can always have 2, 3 people see a fight very differently from rest and in order to avoid those 2, 3 people as only people who matter including more in decision making is right way to move forward.

This way allegation like promoter has bought the judges will not arise and fighters would also be at peace if fight is scored 7-2, 6-3.

What do you think?

Peace
Sachin

[Impractical Poster]

Not sure there was anything wrong with the scoring in this one.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Not sure there was anything wrong with the scoring in this one.

I don't think it was an outright robbery like the first fight, but the officials definitely gave every remotely close round to the house fighter. Golovkin clearly took 9, 10 and 11, so to have Canelo winning the fight you have to give him 6 of the first 8 (or rob Golovkin of the late rounds he definitely took). That's not the fight we saw, imo.

[Ricky]

Not sure there was anything wrong with the scoring in this one.

I agree, the first fight I think was a travesty and Byrd shoukd have been struck off. This one was a close fight but Canelo MD with 2 cards 7-5 is fair judging imo, not corruption.

[RScarf1]

5 judges won’t matter if they all have the same agenda. The vast majority of people (fans, media) thought GGG won or at least a draw.

[HomicideHenry]

To fix judging would be to have a complete flush of the system. All of the judges currently on file, shuffle the deck. No more impartiality to certain locations and promoters. Someone whose reffed fights mainly in Nevada, send them off to the prairie for a few months. Then send them to the South, then the Midwest, and the East coast. Oh, and let's just make a universal payment cap on these people. Whether they work a fight for two bums or a ppv event shouldn't matter, they should only make no more than $1,000. If there's absolutely no incentive to be biased, the corruption stops.

[tigermoth87]

When are judges selected?

Maybe have a short list of like 20 with the three not revealed until the fight starts.

Just to stop any back handers happening.

Also if a judge makes a truly stupid call like the one who gave Canelo a draw Vs Mayweather. Fire them.

[Kilsby]

I've said it before & i'll say it again...

There is no need to increase the number of cards - three official scorecards is more than enough.

But if you had 3 judges each working one card to come to a general consensus then I feel that would be best.

Card A
Judge 1
Judge 2
Judge 3

Card B
Judge 1
Judge 2
Judge 3

Card C
Judge 1
Judge 2
Judge 3

If on Card A, round 1 was scored
Judge 1, 10-9 GGG
Judge 2 10-9 Canelo
Judge 3 10-9 Canelo

^^^
The round would be scored 10-9 Canelo, as Judge 1 would be overuled by Judges 2 & 3 as a majority.

If Judges 1 & 3 both scored in 10-9 but both for different fighters & judge 2 scored it 10-10 - the round would be scored 10-10 on the official card.

This way you get a rounder picture as 3 judges are giving a more balanced picture to form one individual card.

So you don't get ridiculous 118-110 cards like in the first fight as its not one (corrupt or incompetent) individual scoring the bout.

[Enlightened-One]

Well we again had a controversial decision in boxing today.

The judges scorecards were close and the scoring of eight of the rounds matched the media’s perception. Even GGG’s most ardent admirers cannot come to a unanimous conclusion as to the worthy winner of the other four rounds.

Many at ring side felt Golovkin won the fight or at best a draw.

As long as they don’t believe that a “robbery” took place, those aren’t unreasonable opinions to hold.

It was close decision either way and one cannot argue with the decision.

Agreed.

One way to resolve such a issue is simply include more in decision making. In older times we had something call newspaper decision. If a fight did not get resolved by stoppage, multiple sportswriters covering the event at ringside would arrive at consensus.

As I stated earlier, the media are unable to unanimously agree upon the specific rounds that they felt GGG won (i.e. the 7th, 8th, 9th and 12th were under question and up for debate).

So this solution wouldn’t work. Especially considering the social media backlash suffered by those that don’t agree with the mainstream popular opinion. Many media savvy boxing pundits, former/current pros or celebrities will refrain from expressing honest opinions, because the consequences of going against the grain will inevitably result in them receiving a barrage of abuse.

Now we don't have that type of decision any more, but we can always increase number of judges from 3 to have more people say in the process and a fighter not be at mercy of 3 people that matter.

Now in amateurs we have 5 people judging a contest and I suggest this to be the number of professional bouts too.

It’s difficult to score fights, because of the subjective nature of scoring. More judges doesn’t guarantee fewer controversies, especially if mainstream casuals don’t understand the sport of boxing or its rules very well.

Wasn’t Anthony Joshua a very fortunate recipient of two amateur victories during the Olympics? Controversial decisions occur in the amateurs also.

This way allegation like promoter has bought the judges will not arise and fighters would also be at peace if fight is scored 7-2, 6-3.

Allegations of this nature should be ignored and not considered when trying to implement a few changes to make the scoring of bouts easier to understand or more fair, because those that make such assertions cannot substantiate their beliefs and are usually too lazy to even research the validity of their claims.

What do you think?

The judges who scored the GGG-Canelo rematch acted reasonably, even if you didn’t agree with their decision.

As I stated earlier, the media agreed with the judges scoring of eight rounds (awarding GGG and Canelo four rounds apiece), but they themselves couldn’t draw a unanimous conclusion as to how the other four rounds played out.

Is it unreasonable to argue that the outcome of any evenly contested bout between two polarising characters (i.e. the “villainous” Canelo versus the “heroic” Golovkin) is always likely to be deemed as being “controversial” in nature with the supporters of either man boldly proclaiming that a “robbery” has taken place (should their man lose)?

Is it also unreasonable to claim that the vast majority of bouts are scored fairly, from purely a statistical perspective, since many fight fans make no effort whatsoever to quantify the actual amount of “bad” or “corrupt” scorecards that occur in comparison to the total amount of bouts that actually go the distance?

If the answer is “NO!” to both questions, then how valid is the need to “fix” the judging of bouts in boxing?

Is it unreasonable to claim that a big part of the problem relates to the fact that rounds should be scored 10-10 if they are evenly-contested, since almost all judges, fight fans and boxing pundits feel compelled to determine a winner of each round, which means that some sort of bias often comes into play, whether it’s to award close rounds to their favoured fighter or alternatively based solely on their personal stylistic preferences?

[Heretic]

You should ask that from De La Hoya...

He seems to know

[candyslim]

Just a thought but wouldn't it help with the problem if the judges were not appointed by the local commission? Lets say for example that judges for fights in Las Vegas (or anywhere else) were nominated by the commission of another state chosen at random?.

I'm sure anybody wanting to abuse the system for their own ends would eventually find a workaround but at least it wouldn't be begging for them to exploit the loopholes like the current system seems to do.

[JCS]

Some fights just aren't easy to score..

How many of these types of threads do we need?

[Enlightened-One]

Just a thought but wouldn't it help with the problem if the judges were not appointed by the local commission? Lets say for example that judges for fights in Las Vegas (or anywhere else) were nominated by the commission of another state chosen at random?.

I'm sure anybody wanting to abuse the system for their own ends would eventually find a workaround but at least it wouldn't be begging for them to exploit the loopholes like the current system seems to do.

Your proposal raises the cost of staging bouts, which will inevitably be paid for via a reduction in the fighters’ purses.

The vast majority of pro boxers only compete in the sport to make ends meet and to pay the bills. They won't appreciate having to fund the extra travel and accommodation expenses for an issue that no one has ever bothered to quantity.

For instance: what proportion of those pro bouts went the distance last weekend resulted in a highly controversial outcome due to dodgy judges’ scorecards?

Nobody from this forum will be able to provide an accurate answer to such a question, yet casual mainstream fight fans are proposing that there's an epidemic in our beloved sport for outrageous hometown decision robberies.

[Ricky]

Judging is only ever an opinion anyway.

More needs to be done to find stoppage winners. Bring back 15 rounds and make the gloves lighter.

[ace_bubble]

I've said it before & i'll say it again...

There is no need to increase the number of cards - three official scorecards is more than enough.

But if you had 3 judges each working one card to come to a general consensus then I feel that would be best.

Even this makes sense. I am just trying a way to make the process more democratic.
What happened in Canelo vs GGG bout was that 3 judges scorecard did not agree with ring side sports writers and unofficial scorers.

The general consensus was more inclined towards GGG victory than draw than Canelo victory, but everyone was in unison that card was close.

So just in order to make judges card perhaps more in tune with ring side observers, increasing the people making official scores to say 5 - 9 will make more sense.

One can have independent cards or have 3 per card. How we distribute is can be discussed.

[boxing_rocks]

When mafia/cartels are involved, you need FBI to fix things.

[candyslim]

Judging is only ever an opinion anyway.

More needs to be done to find stoppage winners. Bring back 15 rounds and make the gloves lighter.

Great idea. Maybe we could legitimize horseshoes in the gloves, whaddyathink?

Alright alright I was only kidding

@ Enlightened One: Firstly I should have made it clear this wouldn't apply to most shows only those that boasted at least one fight featuring two rated fighters - usually world rated but exceptions to apply where significant local titles are on the line. The requirement could be waived if both fighters agree.

Secondly I wasn't suggesting for example that the Massachusetts commission would send New England judges to officiate in Los Angeles but they would have access to a computerized directory of judges registered to their location / venue(s) where they are authorized to judge, and then the LA judges would be selected in Boston or whereever.

Of course it wouldn't wipe out corruption as long as greedy bastards are able to find each other and communicate but it would surely make it more risky to pursue their agenda, no?

[gilgamesh]

When are judges selected?

Maybe have a short list of like 20 with the three not revealed until the fight starts.

Just to stop any back handers happening.

Also if a judge makes a truly stupid call like the one who gave Canelo a draw Vs Mayweather. Fire them.

These both seem like decent ideas

[Ricky]

Judging is only ever an opinion anyway.

More needs to be done to find stoppage winners. Bring back 15 rounds and make the gloves lighter.

Great idea. Maybe we could legitimize horseshoes in the gloves, whaddyathink?

Alright alright I was only kidding

@ Enlightened One: Firstly I should have made it clear this wouldn't apply to most shows only those that boasted at least one fight featuring two rated fighters - usually world rated but exceptions to apply where significant local titles are on the line. The requirement could be waived if both fighters agree.

Secondly I wasn't suggesting for example that the Massachusetts commission would send New England judges to officiate in Los Angeles but they would have access to a computerized directory of judges registered to their location / venue(s) where they are authorized to judge, and then the LA judges would be selected in Boston or whereever.

Of course it wouldn't wipe out corruption as long as greedy bastards are able to find each other and communicate but it would surely make it more risky to pursue their agenda, no?

My point stands. Only stoppages give a pure winner. The final bell means its only ever going to be an opinion.

[gilgamesh]

Judging is only ever an opinion anyway.

More needs to be done to find stoppage winners. Bring back 15 rounds and make the gloves lighter.

Great idea. Maybe we could legitimize horseshoes in the gloves, whaddyathink?

Alright alright I was only kidding

@ Enlightened One: Firstly I should have made it clear this wouldn't apply to most shows only those that boasted at least one fight featuring two rated fighters - usually world rated but exceptions to apply where significant local titles are on the line. The requirement could be waived if both fighters agree.

Secondly I wasn't suggesting for example that the Massachusetts commission would send New England judges to officiate in Los Angeles but they would have access to a computerized directory of judges registered to their location / venue(s) where they are authorized to judge, and then the LA judges would be selected in Boston or whereever.

Of course it wouldn't wipe out corruption as long as greedy bastards are able to find each other and communicate but it would surely make it more risky to pursue their agenda, no?

My point stands. Only stoppages give a pure winner. The final bell means its only ever going to be an opinion.

In a lot of cases yeah, but I mean there are cases when the decision is absolutely undeniable. Like in the case of a shutout or a 119-109 type decision where pretty much everyone agrees that's the way it went down, but yeah nothing beats a KO as far as there's no denying who won this fight.

[candyslim]

Judging is only ever an opinion anyway.

More needs to be done to find stoppage winners. Bring back 15 rounds and make the gloves lighter.

Great idea. Maybe we could legitimize horseshoes in the gloves, whaddyathink?

Alright alright I was only kidding

@ Enlightened One: Firstly I should have made it clear this wouldn't apply to most shows only those that boasted at least one fight featuring two rated fighters - usually world rated but exceptions to apply where significant local titles are on the line. The requirement could be waived if both fighters agree.

Secondly I wasn't suggesting for example that the Massachusetts commission would send New England judges to officiate in Los Angeles but they would have access to a computerized directory of judges registered to their location / venue(s) where they are authorized to judge, and then the LA judges would be selected in Boston or whereever.

Of course it wouldn't wipe out corruption as long as greedy bastards are able to find each other and communicate but it would surely make it more risky to pursue their agenda, no?

My point stands. Only stoppages give a pure winner. The final bell means its only ever going to be an opinion.

True but if you could eradicate corruption (yeah I know) and have judges who know their boxing and can score how they see it, without having to worry some piece of sh*t employer is going to make him pay for scoring in favour of the guy who was battering the other, then boxing would be in a wonderful place.

Ok you'd never stamp out controversial decisions because humans see things differently, but would you want to?

Good honest disagreement is one of the things that makes this great sport so interesting and vibrant.

[Heretic]

Judging is only ever an opinion anyway.

More needs to be done to find stoppage winners. Bring back 15 rounds and make the gloves lighter.

Great idea. Maybe we could legitimize horseshoes in the gloves, whaddyathink?

Alright alright I was only kidding

@ Enlightened One: Firstly I should have made it clear this wouldn't apply to most shows only those that boasted at least one fight featuring two rated fighters - usually world rated but exceptions to apply where significant local titles are on the line. The requirement could be waived if both fighters agree.

Secondly I wasn't suggesting for example that the Massachusetts commission would send New England judges to officiate in Los Angeles but they would have access to a computerized directory of judges registered to their location / venue(s) where they are authorized to judge, and then the LA judges would be selected in Boston or whereever.

Of course it wouldn't wipe out corruption as long as greedy bastards are able to find each other and communicate but it would surely make it more risky to pursue their agenda, no?

My point stands. Only stoppages give a pure winner. The final bell means its only ever going to be an opinion.

Well Usyk vs Gassiev was pretty good example of pure winner without KO