Golovkin + Rubio = Saul?

[scallum]

Canelo could be that Dude. I thought he would lose to Trout and get outclassed by Lara, he proved me wrong twice. He made Lara run like he stole something . Canelo being only 23 has already got a most impressive resume and he wants to fight the best.

[ikorolev]

Canelo could be that Dude. I thought he would lose to Trout and get outclassed by Lara, he proved me wrong twice. He made Lara run like he stole something . Canelo being only 23 has already got a most impressive resume and he wants to fight the best.

He didn't make Lara to do anything. Lara chose to move and sting and he succeeded in showing how limited Canelo is.

[birdman77]

Not a super hard fight to call. Although they may not APPEAR much different in size, GGG is the bigger and stronger man. And while we 're counting, he may even be the better boxer. Golovkin is not ATG material, but is clearly best 160 lber in boxing right now. He may have to jump up to get fights but Saul better think a lot before taking this scrap. No, he will not be risking his health- just his career if he gets embarassed by knockout. Too small

[jezzamundo]

I would make Canelo a narrow favourite to beat Cotto. I believe Cotto is the better boxer, he is more skilful with better movement and a higher punch output. On the other hand, Canelo is the naturally bigger man, probably hits harder and definitely had the better chin. Canelo also seems to be given the benefit of the doubt by the judges - the scorecards against Trout were a disgrace, that fight was razor close and did anyone else have him drawing with Mayweather? I would actually love to see Cotto beat Canelo, but on the other hand, I would want to see the winner fight GGG and it certainly seems that would be more likely if Canelo were the victor.

Comments about GGG's quality of opposition are justified, but he is clearly the #1 middleweight in the world. I actually wasn't particularly impressed with his showing against Geale, although I think GGG quickly realised that Geale couldn't hurt him and so he neglected defense in an effort to land his own power punch which ended the fight. I believe Canelo wouldn't be put away with a single shot, but ultimately his low punch output would mean his only chance of winning would be to knock GGG out or to knock him down multiple times, neither of which seems a likely outcome. My pick: GGG by a mid to late rounds stoppage.

[ikorolev]

Canelo could be that Dude. I thought he would lose to Trout and get outclassed by Lara, he proved me wrong twice. He made Lara run like he stole something . Canelo being only 23 has already got a most impressive resume and he wants to fight the best.

He didn't make Lara to do anything. Lara chose to move...

I agree with this... Canelo wasn't able to move forward as quickly as Lara could sprint backwards.

A more skillful boxer would be an idiot to stand and exchange with a stronger fighter. Lara did what he needed to do: move and land good punches. It was close, and one corrupt judge shifted the result to Canelo's benefit.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Not that the media makes a difference, but they were split down the middle. Very close fight, I had Lara 7-5. Neither guy threw many punches.

No judges would be needed for Golovkin/Canelo, just a nasty beat down for as long as Alvarez can take it.

[crusader]

Lara almost certainly “moved and landed good punches” for the first five rounds against Canelo but then stopped letting his hands go from the majority of the remainder of the bout, which is the reason why the media believed that the Mexican deserved his victory… a notion that is seemingly supported by the CompuBox stats.

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/opinion ... -showdown/

Fightscorecollector compiled 89 media scores and said it was the closest split he's seen. The average card was 114-114 and of the 89 scores there were 34 for Alvarez, 30 for Lara, and 25 that were even, meaning a significant majority of the 89 didn't have Canelo winning.

http://www.BS.com/forums/view. ... a-compubox

I also don't get the reference to the CompuBox stats. Per CompuBox Lara outlanded Canelo in seven rounds, Canelo landed more in three rounds, and in two rounds they landed the same number of punches. Lara is also listed as throwing more punches from rounds six-eleven than he did in the first five rounds and his punches from six-eleven were fairly spread out. Lara's highest output is given as occurring in the 12th, meaning that per CompuBox he increased his activity near the end.

[scallum]

Canelo could be that Dude. I thought he would lose to Trout and get outclassed by Lara, he proved me wrong twice. He made Lara run like he stole something . Canelo being only 23 has already got a most impressive resume and he wants to fight the best.

He didn't make Lara to do anything. Lara chose to move and sting and he succeeded in showing how limited Canelo is.

Lara fought as if it was a Amatuer fight. He seemed a bit intimidated. He fought Angulo different. Canelo clearly beat by Lara by landing more effective blows. Body shots count too in professional boxing. On top of that Lara and his team should have known who the house fighter was, it was on them to show they wanted that victory

[scallum]

Canelo could be that Dude. I thought he would lose to Trout and get outclassed by Lara, he proved me wrong twice. He made Lara run like he stole something . Canelo being only 23 has already got a most impressive resume and he wants to fight the best.

He didn't make Lara to do anything. Lara chose to move...

I agree with this... Canelo wasn't able to move forward as quickly as Lara could sprint backwards.

Second half of the fight Lara seemed intimidated. I'm definitely a favor of the stick and move types but Lara was moving and not trying to score much. On the clinching I dont recall him not once trying to score, he was just clinching trying not to get hit

[scallum]

Canelo being the A side could try and get Ggg to come down to 156 or so, other than that his chances in that fight don't look very optimistic

[crusader]

You made a blanket claim about the media having Canelo winning, but that isn't supported by the available evidence as I showed. You're now attempting to qualify that by ignoring many of those cards based on your assessment of prestige, but it's fallacious to weigh an opinion based on it's source rather than it's content and prestige doesn't equate to better scores. Dan Rafael, for example, may work for ESPN but he regularly turns in very poor scores, such as giving Mayweather the final round of the Maidana rematch even though everyone else who I've seen give their scoring for the 12th else had Maidana winning the round as Mayweather hardly threw a punch.

Additionally, one can interpret the CompuBox stats in Canelo's favor if they go by powershots, but overall accuracy and punches landed favor Lara, offering evidence for a strong counter argument if one just uses CompuBox numbers, which is highly questionable anyway as they don't tell the entire story of what occurred and are subject to error. They are, after all, just another opinion based on human judgment, and using them as the basis for a statement like ' it’s impossible to deny that Alvarez didn’t connect with the cleaner more effective punches for at least ten of the twelve rounds' is laughable.

Canelo-Lara was very close and I think the result was justifiable, but it's nonsensical to suggest that Canelo was the consensus media winner and that CompuBox numbers support that without giving Lara an argument for victory.

[Bobbyptsd]

As I said at the time, I thought Canelo beat Lara, and is better than I'd given him credit for.

He seems sturdy (since the Jose Angel Cotto incident anyway), can bang if your going to slow down for any amount of time, goes to the body well, and has guts.

I think he's significantly better than Chavez jr, not sure why people make that connection. But the outcome is somewhat similar as what I thought Chavez-GGG would be. I'm not sure if he goes down, but I hope he does, because if not he takes a hell of a beating over 12, not a good proposition for him.

[crusader]

They usually look for three things to ascertain the winner of a round… and a fighter that successfully executes all of those things will win that round:
1. Who presses the action, which some regard as ring generalship
2. Who controls the tempo
3. Who lands the cleaner more effective shots

Where does it indicate that judges should award someone for pressing the action and that doing so equates to ring generalship? I'd say that ring generalship can be displayed in multiple ways that don't involve one fighter coming forward and being more aggressive. For example, a counterpuncher can show superior ring generalship by having his opponent come toward him, make the first moves, and therefore create openings for counters.

If you look at most sets of judging criteria, they mention defense as a criterion and, vaguely, effective aggression. The nature of the outlined criteria leaves much room open for one to define the criteria in their own way, and I can see how someone would reasonably think that being more accurate than your opponent per CompuBox numbers (since this debate is largely about them) is an indicator of superior defense and more effective (because it's more accurate) agression.

According to the CompuBox stats, Canelo landed more power punches than Lara in ten of the twelve rounds. In fact, in round four, Lara only landed three of the twenty punches he threw.

Therefore, in terms of the third criteria alone, it seems clear that Canelo landed the cleaner more effective shots for nearly all of the rounds. Anyway, let’s consider the other factors…

A power punch is simply a punch that isn't a jab, so no, having a statistical edge in power shots doesn't mean that one landed more cleanly than their opponent. It often means that one landed harder shots, but not always. In this case I think it's reasonable to believe that Canelo landed the harder shots, but he also consistently landed fewer shots and was less accurate. If one scores partially based on defense and accuracy, the latter of which could be considered effective aggression, I can see how they'd have Lara winning more rounds than Canelo, which I think is fair.

We know that defence can make or break a fighter on the scorecards. The average fan only considers landed punches as a way to win a round, but what they don’t know is that effective defence is the quicker way to win a round, because it’s rated higher than effective offense.

To explain this concept better, a boxer that makes a guy miss… and they land frequently when their opponent does miss, they get credit from the judges for using defence that implements offence. This is what Erislandy Lara successfully executed for the majority of the first five rounds, which was the reason why he won most of those rounds.

However, a fighter that is on the move and is not letting their hands go, then it’ll actually work against them, as they’re simply wasting time. This is what Erislandy Lara did for from round six onwards and it cost him dearly on the scorecards.

Let’s not forget that judges are there to judge a “fight”, so even when using defence, a boxer has to fight. Erislandy Lara didn’t fight, which resulted in him basically forfeiting too many rounds to the man that is trying to fight in the mind of those judges, whether they’re connecting more or not.

Since this debate was about what CompuBox indicated about the fight, I don't agree that those figures suggested that Lara slowed after the first five rounds. As I mentioned before, he is listed as throwing more over rounds 6-11 than he is for 1-5, with his highest output being in the 12th. He is also listed as outlanding Canelo and landing more accurately in multiple rounds over the second half.

Therefore, in my honest opinion, the fighter who pressed the action, controlled the tempo and landed the cleaner more effective blows for the majority of the rounds was… Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez, which is the reason why he deserved to win his fight against Erislandy Lara.

And one could just as easily use CompuBox figures to say that Lara outboxed Canelo, as he landed at a higher percentage, got hit less, and outlanded Canelo in the majority of rounds. In this sense, Lara ticked the boxes for effective aggression and superior defense.

You can add all your theatrical laughter as a dishonest means to undermine my opinion, but when I claimed that Canelo landed more power punches than Lara in ten of the twelve rounds, this is based on irrefutable facts. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he won all ten of those rounds, because there are other criteria to be considered, but in terms of “cleaner more effective shots” the facts are there for everyone to see.

Laughable is a synonym for ludicrous, it not a synonym for theatrical laughter and at no time did I literally laugh. I think the view that CompuBox stats irrefutably show that one fighter was superior is laughable because the figures are simply the product of error-prone human judgment and rarely tell the full story of a bout. For example, if you land three glancing hooks that have no impact on me but I hurt you with two flush powershots of my own, you'll still be listed as having an edge in powershots according to CompuBox, and therefore someone who is just going by those figures could craft some dubious argument about you being the more effective aggressor simply because you landed more power punches.

I’ve already claimed that the Canelo-Lara bout was highly-competitive, but I thought the Mexican deserved to win… and I have already stated that I have no problem with the opinions of others if they disagreed with me by believing Lara should have won. That being said, there was almost certainly no robbery... there was no travesity!

It wasn't a travesty and I never claimed it was. I claimed that the media scores and CompuBox figures don't clearly suggest a Canelo win like you suggested. Do you think there should be a forced rematch? You claim the media had Canelo winning when only 34 of 89 had him ahead and 30 had Lara winning, yet you've called for an Abraham-Smith rematch when nearly 60 percent of the media polled had AA winning and only 18 percent scored for Smith.

So once again, I stand by my comments, because they are carefully-considered, and I refuse to bow to peer pressure to those that resort to using fake theatrical laughter as their only weapon to undermine my claims.

I've responded to your posts when carefully considered arguments and cited evidence to support those arguments, so if you think 'fake theatrical laughter' is my only weapon to undermine your claims I suspect you haven't read my posts too closely, my sensitive friend.

[ikorolev]

You made a blanket claim about the media having Canelo winning, but that isn't supported by the available evidence as I showed. You're now attempting to qualify that by ignoring many of those cards based on your assessment of prestige, but it's fallacious to weigh an opinion based on it's source rather than it's content and prestige doesn't equate to better scores. Dan Rafael, for example, may work for ESPN but he regularly turns in very poor scores, such as giving Mayweather the final round of the Maidana rematch even though everyone else who I've seen give their scoring for the 12th else had Maidana winning the round as Mayweather hardly threw a punch.

Additionally, one can interpret the CompuBox stats in Canelo's favor if they go by powershots, but overall accuracy and punches landed favor Lara, offering evidence for a strong counter argument if one just uses CompuBox numbers, which is highly questionable anyway as they don't tell the entire story of what occurred and are subject to error. They are, after all, just another opinion based on human judgment, and using them as the basis for a statement like ' it’s impossible to deny that Alvarez didn’t connect with the cleaner more effective punches for at least ten of the twelve rounds' is laughable.

Canelo-Lara was very close and I think the result was justifiable, but it's nonsensical to suggest that Canelo was the consensus media winner and that CompuBox numbers support that without giving Lara an argument for victory.

I’m led to believe that judges use a very specific set of criteria that us fight fans may not consider.

They usually look for three things to ascertain the winner of a round… and a fighter that successfully executes all of those things will win that round:
1. Who presses the action, which some regard as ring generalship
2. Who controls the tempo
3. Who lands the cleaner more effective shots

According to the CompuBox stats, Canelo landed more power punches than Lara in ten of the twelve rounds. In fact, in round four, Lara only landed three of the twenty punches he threw.

Therefore, in terms of the third criteria alone, it seems clear that Canelo landed the cleaner more effective shots for nearly all of the rounds. Anyway, let’s consider the other factors…

We know that defence can make or break a fighter on the scorecards. The average fan only considers landed punches as a way to win a round, but what they don’t know is that effective defence is the quicker way to win a round, because it’s rated higher than effective offense.

To explain this concept better, a boxer that makes a guy miss… and they land frequently when their opponent does miss, they get credit from the judges for using defence that implements offence. This is what Erislandy Lara successfully executed for the majority of the first five rounds, which was the reason why he won most of those rounds.

However, a fighter that is on the move and is not letting their hands go, then it’ll actually work against them, as they’re simply wasting time. This is what Erislandy Lara did for from round six onwards and it cost him dearly on the scorecards.

Let’s not forget that judges are there to judge a “fight”, so even when using defence, a boxer has to fight. Erislandy Lara didn’t fight, which resulted in him basically forfeiting too many rounds to the man that is trying to fight in the mind of those judges, whether they’re connecting more or not.

Therefore, in my honest opinion, the fighter who pressed the action, controlled the tempo and landed the cleaner more effective blows for the majority of the rounds was… Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez, which is the reason why he deserved to win his fight against Erislandy Lara.

You can add all your theatrical laughter as a dishonest means to undermine my opinion, but when I claimed that Canelo landed more power punches than Lara in ten of the twelve rounds, this is based on irrefutable facts. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he won all ten of those rounds, because there are other criteria to be considered, but in terms of “cleaner more effective shots” the facts are there for everyone to see.

I’ve already claimed that the Canelo-Lara bout was highly-competitive, but I thought the Mexican deserved to win… and I have already stated that I have no problem with the opinions of others if they disagreed with me by believing Lara should have won. That being said, there was almost certainly no robbery... there was no travesity!

So once again, I stand by my comments, because they are carefully-considered, and I refuse to bow to peer pressure to those that resort to using fake theatrical laughter as their only weapon to undermine my claims.

Wow, fergusg, you need to relax.

[crusader]

-I don't see why a rematch should be forced due to excessively wide scoring when the result was fair. As I asked in another thread, should there be a mandated rematch for a bout in which one boxer clearly deserved to win 8-4 but the judges had it 12-0 for him and outcry resulted? There would still be elements of injustice and controversy as there were in Smith-AA.

-You asserted that Canelo was the winner according to the media and that CompuBox numbers favored him, to which I adduced a poll of 89 media members and the CompuBox numbers to support my counterarguments.

-CompuBox numbers aren't facts in the sense that they reflect the exact punch outputs and connects of each fighter; they are merely opinionS on those issues given by humans. Even if we take them as factual in the sense I mentioned, they can still be interpreted in Lara's favor using common scoring criteria, as I argued in my post before this one.

[Tarkus]

-I don't see why a rematch should be forced due to excessively wide scoring when the result was fair.

Who decides what is fair? All we know is that fight was close and judges were not looking. It could have easily gone the other way. In other words if there is no confidence in judges work then the outcome is unreliable and there is a need for rematch.

[crusader]

I believe that when the official judges scoring is ridiculously biased… and let’s face it, very few people can eloquently and logically articulate their reasoning justifying the stupendously wide margin of victory that Abraham enjoyed over Smith… coupled with the fact that only 57% (a total that is rapidly diminishing) of the media had Abraham winning by a razor thin margin, then the sport of boxing needs to address the atmosphere of controversy by granting Paul Smith a rematch.

How is the total 'rapidly diminishing'? Whether it's 57.7 percent or a bit lower, it's still a much greater figure than that in favor of a Smith victory. Going by that, what I saw in the bout, and what I've gleaned from various forums, there isn't much basis for thinking Abraham didn't have a reasonable case for winning. You previously mentioned justifying the rematch because there was controversy over the scoring, but there would be similar controversy in the case I mentioned. I don't think the two should be distinguished based on Abraham's win not being as clear, as he was still seems to be the consensus winner for legitimate reasons and I think forcing rematches based on controversial outcomes requires a greater degree of injustice, that being when the person who deserved to win doesn't.

To address your other points…more members of the media thought Canelo beat Lara than vice versa. You haven’t proved otherwise.

I never claimed to. You haven't shown that more members of the media had Canelo winning than not winning. If only 34 of 89 had Canelo winning, that's hardly a strong for saying he was the media winner.

In terms of CompuBox:
• Lara landed 107 punches. 52 of them were power shots
• Canelo landed 97 punches. 88 of them were power shots

If you consider the overall totals and also review the round-by-round breakdown, it’s almost impossible to deny that Canelo landed more power punches than Lara in ten of the twelve rounds… and this matched the action we witnessed on our TV screens.

I've already addressed these figures and their potential shortcomings in previous posts. Refer to those for my response.

Even if we discount CompuBox, the majority of the media believed that the Mexican defeated Lara. I don’t care for convoluted arguments undermining the value or highlighting the flaws of punch stats, when my own eyeballs watched the fight and my own perception reinforces the punch data that CompuBox supplies.

Majority means more than half. If we go by the media poll posted herein, you'll see that only 34 of the 89 media cards had Canelo ahead. That is well short of a majority and a fighter would not win a bout if they had only one of three judges scoring in their favor. It's great that you think we should go beyond CompuBox, because it's a highly flawed means of defending one's argument.

[crusader]

-I don't see why a rematch should be forced due to excessively wide scoring when the result was fair.

Who decides what is fair? All we know is that fight was close and judges were not looking. It could have easily gone the other way. In other words if there is no confidence in judges work then the outcome is unreliable and there is a need for rematch.

We each decide what is fair in our view, with certain conceptions being more strongly defended than others. In this case I think a fair outcome is one in which the winner had a legitimate case for victory. I thought Abraham edged a competitive fight, he won on the majority of cards reported in the mentioned media poll, and he's well ahead in the poll I posted in the British section of the forum. I see no reason to believe that him winning the fight is an injustice, and as I've mentioned I think forced rematches should be saved for those instances.

While I agree the cards were too wide, I don't believe 116-112 for Abraham is unreasonable and a judge being one point off that doesn't suggest to me that they 'were not looking' or that they had their card determined before the bout, which is nothing but speculation. The 11-1 card is horrible and well off, but overall I don't think the injustice of the cards being too wide is enough to force a rematch when Abraham's case for victory was very strong. A fair result trumps all in my view, and I think the result was fair.

Now I can't wait to hear all the calls for rematches in bouts where the cards were too wide.

[crusader]

-I think CompuBox is a highly flawed means of defending one's scorecard for the reasons I've mentioned. It's just another human opinion and the figures can be misleading in ways I've suggested. I understand if someone says that CompuBox numbers reflect what they saw, but using them on their own or suggesting that something transpired in a particular manner because CompuBox says so doesn't make for a strong argument.

-Nearly 60 percent-- a real majority unlike the scores for Canelo--had Abraham winning and 82 percent didn't think he lost, and I've already said that I think forced rematches based on questionable judging should be saved for bouts in which the result wasn't defensible. Abraham had no obligation to fight Smith, yet he did and he was the consensus winner among the polled media and the educated posters on this forum who've given their opinion. Excessively wide cards and some debate as to who won isn't enough to force a rematch in my view.

I've never seen such outcry for a rematch simply based on wide cards, and I wonder if the calls for mandated rematches will continue. Decisions in which the cards are excessively wide, to the point where one scratches their head, occur nearly every weak.

[Tarkus]

My point is that since we use judges to decide the outcome then judges should be performing reliably. If it is determined that they don't perform reliably then results should be void. How does it matter if public feels it could have been a fair result? Then lets flip a coin and ask public if it is a fair result.

[crusader]

-I think CompuBox is a highly flawed means of defending one's scorecard for the reasons I've mentioned. It's just another human opinion and the figures can be misleading in ways I've suggested. I understand if someone says that CompuBox numbers reflect what they saw, but using them on their own or suggesting that something transpired in a particular manner because CompuBox says so doesn't make for a strong argument.

-Nearly 60 percent-- a real majority unlike the scores for Canelo--had Abraham winning and 82 percent didn't think he lost, and I've already said that I think forced rematches based on questionable judging should be saved for bouts in which the result wasn't defensible. Abraham had no obligation to fight Smith, yet he did and he was the consensus winner among the polled media and the educated posters on this forum who've given their opinion. Excessively wide cards and some debate as to who won isn't enough to force a rematch in my view.

I've never seen such outcry for a rematch simply based on wide cards, and I wonder if the calls for mandated rematches will continue. Decisions in which the cards are excessively wide, to the point where one scratches their head, occur nearly every weak.

I think you’re missing the point. The article containing the aggregated 51 media scorecards was perhaps released prematurely. It seems that more-and-more articles about the dubious nature of the result in this fight are being published… and I suspect, based on reading many of them, that Abraham may no longer have the majority:
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Boxing ... ur+Abraham

What point am I missing? The large majority of those articles don't give a score or cry robbery and it's overwhelmingly from British and American sources. I've also seen media scores for Abraham that weren't included in the poll.

[Tarkus]

My point is that since we use judges to decide the outcome then judges should be performing reliably. If it is determined that they don't perform reliably then results should be void. How does it matter if public feels it could have been a fair result? Then lets flip a coin and ask public if it is a fair result.

Well said.

Thank you brother.

[crusader]

My point is that since we use judges to decide the outcome then judges should be performing reliably. If it is determined that they don't perform reliably then results should be void.

If one boxer clearly deserves to win 8-4 but the judges score it 12-0 for him should the result should be void? According to the logic above it should.

How does it matter if public feels it could have been a fair result? Then lets flip a coin and ask public if it is a fair result.

The boxing media and hardcore fans, those that post on boxing forums, seem to have Abraham as consensus winner and at least think the decision could've gone to him. That itself doesn't make the decision right, but when you consider the explanations given for why many think he won I think it supports the idea that there were good reasons to have him ahead and many people scored the bout for him because of those reasons. I'd support a system in which educated, hardcore boxing fans determined the winner, but going just by the general public opinion is more dangerous in my view because non-hardcore fans tend to be more susceptible to emotion and bias.

Besides, I mentioned Smith-AA in comparison to Lara-Canelo. A greater proportion of listed scores had AA winning than Canelo, and Canelo won 117-111 on one card when none of the 89 media cards had him winning by such a large margin, so it seems to me like the arguments for a mandated Abraham-Smith rematch apply to Lara-Canelo too.

[Tarkus]

Void was probably exaggeration. The original argument was that when fight is close and scorecards don't reflect it then outcome is dubious and rematch is warranted. Canelo Lara scorecards in the whole reflected the closeness of the fight.

I would support better judging system but this is what we have now. We can not amend it by going through boxing forums and looking at media scores.

[crusader]

Void was probably exaggeration. The original argument was that when fight is close and scorecards don't reflect it then outcome is dubious and rematch is warranted. Canelo Lara scorecards in the whole reflected the closeness of the fight.

I would support better judging system but this is what we have now. We can not amend it by going through boxing forums and looking at media scores.

And one card was clearly off the mark in a bout where the other two were split. Perhaps, applying language you used earlier, that judge wasn't looking, in which case the judging may be considered unreliable, especially since the result would've been different had the judge who submitted the 117-111 card scored it even or for Lara.

Obviously official results can't be reached simply through looking in boxing forums and at media scores. I imagine that would be very impractical and difficult to implement, but perhaps there is a more refined way to improve the judging system.