Eliminate the crap judges

[Lennox]

There is a way to eliminate the problem of Judges getting it wrong. Go with the Majority for each round.
If 2 judges voted for Fury in a particular round,
Then he gets the round.
This Eliminates the Dodgy incompitant judge.
If one votes for Wilder and one for Fury and the third judge scores it even then it's an even round ...
It's not too hard.

Great Idea.

[Onetimeonly]

The majority isn't always right. I think we've all seen unanimous decisions that we disagree with.

The judge who called it for Wilder scored some rounds for Fury that the other judges had for Wilder. Of course there has always been incompetence and corruption but some of these rounds we argue over are very close. Highly subjective.

Don't all judges sit in different locations in order for them to all have a different viewpoint?

Good point. An argument can be made that these close rounds should be scored even, but judges now are discouraged from doing so. I think one judge scored something like 8 rounds even for Duran-Leonard 1.

It was 10!

[Tony1244]

Don't all judges sit in different locations in order for them to all have a different viewpoint?

Good point. An argument can be made that these close rounds should be scored even, but judges now are discouraged from doing so. I think one judge scored something like 8 rounds even for Duran-Leonard 1.

It was 10!

Was it that Japanese fellow?

[Onetimeonly]

Don't ever remember judges names.

[Onetimeonly]

Announce a pool of 25 for major fights. Get them all there. Choose the 3 who will be used randomly ten minutes before the start.

People will be less able to afford to buy that many off just on the off-chance they will be picked.

They're going to fly them all in and provide accommodations for all of them?

It wouldn't matter. It's not brown envelopes changing hands that influences judging. It's the first class plane tickets, fancy accommodation and slap up meals, paid for by the home fighter's promoter, that encourage them to weight cards in their favour.

Judges are not earning megabucks. They want to be invited back to the party next time around.

Huh? That doesn't particularly address what I said. I know they don't make much.

[HomicideHenry]

I have a solution for two problems in boxing and that's corrupted judging & fighter retirement plans... Let's get ex-boxer's in there as judges because who better than them to know what the fornicate is going on in that ring?

[Onetimeonly]

Ex boxers are usually really biased by the style most conducive to theirs. That wouldn't improve anything.

[HomicideHenry]

Ex boxers are usually really biased by the style most conducive to theirs. That wouldn't improve anything.

Then fornicate it let's not make a god damned attempt at anything. I'm sick of the excuses.

[jamamb]

i agree, actually boxers in general, current or ex, tend to not be particularly good at judging or picking fights from what ive seen, a lot of the time im thinking 'wow that just seems stupid'

[greg]

..a good start would be to forbid athletic commissions appoint their nationals (up to 4 in case of Nevada State Commission) to officiate any international bout..

[Onetimeonly]

Ex boxers are usually really biased by the style most conducive to theirs. That wouldn't improve anything.

Then eff it let's not make a god damned attempt at anything. I'm sick of the excuses.

That's just a terrible idea. Like most of yours.

[HomicideHenry]

Yeah... Jesus forbid letting fighters have control and say over the business that robs them of so much blood, sweat, brain cells and years away from families... Just so some dickhead like yourself who never fought before can judge THEM on what they dedicated their lives towards.

That's the lamest excuse EVER, "Oh but fighters are biased to guys with their style," tell that to Mike Tyson and so many bangers who gave Wilder 2 rounds, maybe 3. You don't think "fans" like yourself are not biased? Bullshit.

[Onetimeonly]

Yeah... Jesus forbid letting fighters have control and say over the business that robs them of so much blood, sweat, brain cells and years away from families... Just so some dickhead like yourself who never fought before can judge THEM on what they dedicated their lives towards.

That's the lamest excuse EVER, "Oh but fighters are biased to guys with their style," tell that to Mike Tyson and so many bangers who gave Wilder 2 rounds, maybe 3. You don't think "fans" like yourself are not biased? Bullshit.

Sweetheart, no need to get so upset.

[BIGDOUG58]

And another Problem is Nearly all of these Judges NEVER BOXED THEMSELVES.
And that's the Problem....Period.

[jamamb]

honestly not sure its an issue , boxers are really biased and say plenty of stupid stuff too

[candyslim]

The majority isn't always right. I think we've all seen unanimous decisions that we disagree with.

The judge who called it for Wilder scored some rounds for Fury that the other judges had for Wilder. Of course there has always been incompetence and corruption but some of these rounds we argue over are very close. Highly subjective.

Don't all judges sit in different locations in order for them to all have a different viewpoint?

Good point. An argument can be made that these close rounds should be scored even, but judges now are discouraged from doing so. I think one judge scored something like 8 rounds even for Duran-Leonard 1.

That's how I score. If I'm unsure I don't guess. Pick the wrong guy and you've created a two point swing for the undeserving fighter. Call it a tied round and any injustice in doing so will be greatly reduced.

Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on my suggestion? (see previous posts in this thread) I don't mind you saying it's a crap idea provided you explain why. I want to know your opinions.

[Tony1244]

Don't all judges sit in different locations in order for them to all have a different viewpoint?

Good point. An argument can be made that these close rounds should be scored even, but judges now are discouraged from doing so. I think one judge scored something like 8 rounds even for Duran-Leonard 1.

That's how I score. If I'm unsure I don't guess. Pick the wrong guy and you've created a two point swing for the undeserving fighter. Call it a tied round and any injustice in doing so will be greatly reduced.

Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on my suggestion? (see previous posts in this thread) I don't mind you saying it's a crap idea provided you explain why. I want to know your opinions.

If I did it that way, in this case I think I would also have ironically scored it a draw. Maybe 2 rounds Wilder and 4 rounds Fury with the 2 knockdowns making it a draw. Same result just bigger #s than 113-113.

[Deleted_Scenes]

They're going to fly them all in and provide accommodations for all of them?

It wouldn't matter. It's not brown envelopes changing hands that influences judging. It's the first class plane tickets, fancy accommodation and slap up meals, paid for by the home fighter's promoter, that encourage them to weight cards in their favour.

Judges are not earning megabucks. They want to be invited back to the party next time around.

Huh? That doesn't particularly address what I said. I know they don't make much.

It was more a response to gp, following on from your post.

You suggested promoters wouldn't be prepared to fly in so many judges. My point was that even if they did, it wouldn't change anything, since all 25 are potentially corrupted by that point.

Apologies if I wasn't clear, originally.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Don't all judges sit in different locations in order for them to all have a different viewpoint?

Good point. An argument can be made that these close rounds should be scored even, but judges now are discouraged from doing so. I think one judge scored something like 8 rounds even for Duran-Leonard 1.

That's how I score. If I'm unsure I don't guess. Pick the wrong guy and you've created a two point swing for the undeserving fighter. Call it a tied round and any injustice in doing so will be greatly reduced.

Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on my suggestion? (see previous posts in this thread) I don't mind you saying it's a crap idea provided you explain why. I want to know your opinions.

If you analyse a lot of real life controversial decisions, I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying your method wouldn't change the overall result in many cases (happy to be corrected, if anyone can provide data).

EDIT: I misread someone else's suggestion as yours. I actually have no idea how yours would work in practice, although I don't believe there's any possibility of any commission agreeing to it.

I think a better solution would be to have 5 judges, then after all the scores are tallied up, the most extreme in either direction are discarded, and the middle 3 make up the official result.

E.g.

116-110 Fury
114-112 Fury
115-111 Fury
113-113 Draw
115-111 Wilder

Here, the scores in bold would make up the official decision (majority decision to Fury), with the other two being widely of the consensus, so are not used.

It's a similar system to most olympic sports that use a judging system (diving, gymnastics etc). It means if one judge has a bad day, chances are his score doesn't get used, so a robbery is less likely.

[ironbeard]

Good point. An argument can be made that these close rounds should be scored even, but judges now are discouraged from doing so. I think one judge scored something like 8 rounds even for Duran-Leonard 1.

That's how I score. If I'm unsure I don't guess. Pick the wrong guy and you've created a two point swing for the undeserving fighter. Call it a tied round and any injustice in doing so will be greatly reduced.

Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on my suggestion? (see previous posts in this thread) I don't mind you saying it's a crap idea provided you explain why. I want to know your opinions.

If you analyse a lot of real life controversial decisions, I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying your method wouldn't change the overall result in many cases (happy to be corrected, if anyone can provide data).

EDIT: I misread someone else's suggestion as yours. I actually have no idea how yours would work in practice, although I don't believe there's any possibility of any commission agreeing to it.

I think a better solution would be to have 5 judges, then after all the scores are tallied up, the most extreme in either direction are discarded, and the middle 3 make up the official result.

E.g.

116-110 Fury
114-112 Fury
115-111 Fury
113-113 Draw
115-111 Wilder

Here, the scores in bold would make up the official decision (majority decision to Fury), with the other two being widely of the consensus, so are not used.

It's a similar system to most olympic sports that use a judging system (diving, gymnastics etc). It means if one judge has a bad day, chances are his score doesn't get used, so a robbery is less likely.

THAT is a legit idea.

[Lennox]

The stupidity on this forum sometimes is beyond belief.

Having multiple judges costs a lot of money, one chap advocated 25!

I read it this morning I have not stopped laughing all day.

[ironbeard]

The stupidity on this forum sometimes is beyond belief.

Having multiple judges costs a lot of money, one chap advocated 25!

I read it this morning I have not stopped laughing all day.

Do you think 5 is unrealistic? I do not.

[Onetimeonly]

It wouldn't matter. It's not brown envelopes changing hands that influences judging. It's the first class plane tickets, fancy accommodation and slap up meals, paid for by the home fighter's promoter, that encourage them to weight cards in their favour.

Judges are not earning megabucks. They want to be invited back to the party next time around.

Huh? That doesn't particularly address what I said. I know they don't make much.

It was more a response to gp, following on from your post.

You suggested promoters wouldn't be prepared to fly in so many judges. My point was that even if they did, it wouldn't change anything, since all 25 are potentially corrupted by that point.

Apologies if I wasn't clear, originally.

I still say you have to give them a fighting chance. Fury/wilder would be difficult to score under any circumstances but even more so with poor viewing from 3 different angles looking 10 feet up in the air.

[ironbeard]

Huh? That doesn't particularly address what I said. I know they don't make much.

It was more a response to gp, following on from your post.

You suggested promoters wouldn't be prepared to fly in so many judges. My point was that even if they did, it wouldn't change anything, since all 25 are potentially corrupted by that point.

Apologies if I wasn't clear, originally.

I still say you have to give them a fighting chance. Fury/wilder would be difficult to score under any circumstances but even more so with poor viewing from 3 different angles looking 10 feet up in the air.

I like Deleted_Scenes 5 judge, throw out the outside two idea, combined with your quiet room, big screen viewing idea.

[Deleted_Scenes]

It was more a response to gp, following on from your post.

You suggested promoters wouldn't be prepared to fly in so many judges. My point was that even if they did, it wouldn't change anything, since all 25 are potentially corrupted by that point.

Apologies if I wasn't clear, originally.

I still say you have to give them a fighting chance. Fury/wilder would be difficult to score under any circumstances but even more so with poor viewing from 3 different angles looking 10 feet up in the air.

I like Deleted_Scenes 5 judge, throw out the outside two idea, combined with your quiet room, big screen viewing idea.

It makes a lot of sense. Therefore, it will never happen.