Eliminate the crap judges

[Ilya Muromets]

The problem is boxing judges are not there because of their boxing expertise and honesty, they're there because of their connections, and they know who is paying them and what their employer expects and whether they'll ever get called for a gig again if they dont do what their employer expects them to do. Likewise with many referees. Likewise with the Compubox scorers. Likewise with the tv announcers. Likewise with some boxers. Likewise with the whole dirty business.

[Onetimeonly]

Lol at compubox being rigged. It's meaningless, but zero corruption involved. You truly are sickly stupid, dwarf.

[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.

Do you think 5 is unrealistic? I do not.

If you think of goaline technology it is a bit like that, ok for the very elite matches but you can't do those sort things for lesser matches lots of places the ref scores. I liked the idea that the 3 judges submit their scores for each round and 2 votes for A beats 1 vote for B so the round is scored to A, I think that might even things out a bit and it would take away something that exists that no-one really talks about. It is quite intimidating judging in a home town when the away fighter is winning, I think it is natural to be slightly biased to the big cheers.

[oogiebe]

MAYBE Judges should judge from TV monitors and not the live action with obscured views and crowd response.

[Ilya Muromets]

Lol at compubox being rigged. It's meaningless, but zero corruption involved. You truly are sickly stupid, dwarf.

You are too stoopid to respond to, but compubox numbers are most definitely rigged and corrupt,same as the judges numbers. This dope probably thinks they are calculated by some scientific computer.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Lol at compubox being rigged. It's meaningless, but zero corruption involved. You truly are sickly stupid, dwarf.

Yeah, I don't think it's corrupt either, but I do question the accuracy of a couple of guys bashing buttons in real time.

The only time compubox stats are useful for showing who won a round, it's blatantly obvious anyway. For anything remotely close, it's useless.

Interesting to see how fighters vary their offence from head to body etc, but that's something you can see just from actually watching the fight as well.

[Onetimeonly]

Lol at compubox being rigged. It's meaningless, but zero corruption involved. You truly are sickly stupid, dwarf.

Yeah, I don't think it's corrupt either, but I do question the accuracy of a couple of guys bashing buttons in real time.

The only time compubox stats are useful for showing who won a round, it's blatantly obvious anyway. For anything remotely close, it's useless.

Interesting to see how fighters vary their offence from head to body etc, but that's something you can see just from actually watching the fight as well.

I don't think anything of them. Definitely not accurate, definitely not corrupt.

[Deleted_Scenes]

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.

If you think of goaline technology it is a bit like that, ok for the very elite matches but you can't do those sort things for lesser matches lots of places the ref scores. I liked the idea that the 3 judges submit their scores for each round and 2 votes for A beats 1 vote for B so the round is scored to A, I think that might even things out a bit and it would take away something that exists that no-one really talks about. It is quite intimidating judging in a home town when the away fighter is winning, I think it is natural to be slightly biased to the big cheers.

You'd have a tiered system. Obviously you wouldn't see 5 judges at a small hall show, but further down the ladder, you see referee scores instead of 3 judges anyway. No reason 5 can't be used for at least anything on the world level, 3 for the majority of fights a bit lower down, then ref scores for the bottom of the pile. With so much at stake, I don't think it's a problem adding an extra layer of security for the biggest fights.

I think for a '2 overrules 1' for each individual round, you'd probably find the controversial fights we talk about would have had the same controversial outcomes.

[jamamb]

well thing is, if the result wasnt fair then you had at least 2 judges off the mark, they could just keep being the 2 lol

incidentally, using consensus 2 judgesout of 3 scoring jason maloney wouldve beaten manny rodriguez recently

[Deleted_Scenes]

well thing is, if the result wasnt fair then you had at least 2 judges off the mark, they could just keep being the 2 lol

incidentally, using consensus 2 judgesout of 3 scoring jason maloney wouldve beaten manny rodriguez recently

Good example.

[jezzamundo]

Based on majority scoring, here's how the fight went:

Round 1: All three judges scored for Wilder, I thought Fury edged it. 10-9 Wilder.
Round 2: Rochin scored for Wilder. Tapper and Edwards scored for Fury. I thought Wilder won it close. 19-19
Round 3: Rochin scored for Wilder. Tapper and Edwards scored for Fury. I thought Fury edged it. 29-29 Fury
Round 4: Rochin scored for Wilder. Tapper and Edwards scored for Fury. I thought Wilder edged it. 39-37 Fury
Round 5: Unanimous round for Fury. I agree. 49-46 Fury.
Round 6: Edwards scored for Wilder. Rochin and Tapper scored for Fury. I gave it to Fury. 59-55 Fury.
Round 7: Rochin scored for Fury. Tapper and Edwards scored for Wilder. I gave it to Fury. 68-65 Fury.
Round 8: Rochin scored for Wilder. Tapper and Edwards scored for Fury. I gave it to Fury. 78-74 Fury.
Round 9: Knockdown, unanimous 10-8 round for Wilder, same on my card. 86-84 Fury.
Round 10: Unanimous round for Fury. I agree. 96-93 Fury.
Round 11: Unanimous round for Fury. I agree. 106-102 Fury.
Round 12: Knockdown, unanimous 10-8 round for Wilder, same on my card. 114-112 Fury.

So with majority scoring, we come up with the same scorecard I and Tapper had - 8 rounds to 4 for Fury for a 2 point win with the two KDs. I can't argue with a draw because there were a lot of close rounds early on, but Rochin was way off base

[Lennox]

All those majority rds were the same exact as I scored the 12 rds.

[candyslim]

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 see no reason why they would be against the idea except it would need to be a cohesive programme implemented across the country. I don't think there is a federal or nationwide body overseeing state commissions, they are all independent and self regulated aren't they?

Obviously the main governing bodies WBC, WBA, IBF would be in a position to influence the commissions if they so desired but expecting the likes of Sulaiman and Mendoza to take a serious interest in stamping out corruption would be like asking John Gotti to take a lead in eradicating organized crime.

I like the 5 judges idea but I doubt promoters would be too keen. It'd be extra cost and I imagine they are very happy with how it is at the moment.

[JMac]

For awhile, amateur boxing tried using five judges but before each fight the head official would pull 3 numbers out of a hat from 1-5. Those were the 3 scores that counted. I didn't like it from a coach standpoint. I know on more than one occasion the final score was 2-1 for red and the 2 judges whose score did not count had it for blue which if all 5 were used it would have been a 3-2 for blue. My feeling was if we use 3 or 5 judges, make them all count.
I can tell you as a coach, former judge for 27 years and a fan, you see the fight differently from each position. The judges are supposed to watch the space between the boxers and count punches going back and forth. As a coach you are mostly watching your boxer but will also focus on the other as well. As a fan you are watching but talking to people you are with and when you turn your head to say something, you can easily miss a punch that landed.
I can also say as a coach there were times I thought my boxer lost but later when I watched the film, I thought we won and vice versa.
At the end of the day, if the judges are honest they are human and will make mistakes.

[DrDuke]

Based on majority scoring, here's how the fight went:

Round 1: All three judges scored for Wilder, I thought Fury edged it. 10-9 Wilder.
Round 2: Rochin scored for Wilder. Tapper and Edwards scored for Fury. I thought Wilder won it close. 19-19
Round 3: Rochin scored for Wilder. Tapper and Edwards scored for Fury. I thought Fury edged it. 29-29 Fury
Round 4: Rochin scored for Wilder. Tapper and Edwards scored for Fury. I thought Wilder edged it. 39-37 Fury
Round 5: Unanimous round for Fury. I agree. 49-46 Fury.
Round 6: Edwards scored for Wilder. Rochin and Tapper scored for Fury. I gave it to Fury. 59-55 Fury.
Round 7: Rochin scored for Fury. Tapper and Edwards scored for Wilder. I gave it to Fury. 68-65 Fury.
Round 8: Rochin scored for Wilder. Tapper and Edwards scored for Fury. I gave it to Fury. 78-74 Fury.
Round 9: Knockdown, unanimous 10-8 round for Wilder, same on my card. 86-84 Fury.
Round 10: Unanimous round for Fury. I agree. 96-93 Fury.
Round 11: Unanimous round for Fury. I agree. 106-102 Fury.
Round 12: Knockdown, unanimous 10-8 round for Wilder, same on my card. 114-112 Fury.

So with majority scoring, we come up with the same scorecard I and Tapper had - 8 rounds to 4 for Fury for a 2 point win with the two KDs. I can't argue with a draw because there were a lot of close rounds early on, but Rochin was way off base

Scoring for Wilder of the early rounds can be understood, cause Fury was getting used to Wilder, while Deontay hadn't utterly exposed himself yet, but giving to Wilder anything since 6, except 9 and 12, was criminal. The most crazy of the judges gave Fury the 7th though, while the others didn't. What f*cked up scores overall.