BoxRec

And about time too....

http://news.boxrec.com/english-title-fi ... first-time

I don't see the benefit.

I haven't noticed that referees score fights any worse on average than three ringside judges.

Are people sure this will make things any better?

Horse wrote:I don't see the benefit.

I haven't noticed that referees score fights any worse on average than three ringside judges.

Are people sure this will make things any better?

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

Definately about time

If the BBBC can change that stupid cuts ruke that they insist on using then I'll have feck all to moan about

Good decision.

Chambers2 wrote:If the BBBC can change that stupid cuts ruke that they insist on using then I'll have feck all to moan about

Like the rest of us, you'll think of something

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?

A minor point - is there anyway the judge sitting nearest to the TV commentary could be moved - whilst that would prove unpopular for the VIP's on the TV facing side of the ring - does anyone else here think there is a danger of the judge being influenced in an innocent way by the TV commentators?

Terrible news for promoters, especially those with non-TV shows. It will only add to costs for them paying for extra officials.

There are plenty of eliminator and English title fights taking place on non-televised shows and this will put promoters off staging them and who can blame them.

At least it might see the re-birth of area title fights which have become almost extinct in some regions.

It is now only a matter of time before every fight in this country is decided by judges.

Terry O'Connor's honest mistake will prove costly for a lot of people.

am all for it

Spud wrote:A minor point - is there anyway the judge sitting nearest to the TV commentary could be moved - whilst that would prove unpopular for the VIP's on the TV facing side of the ring - does anyone else here think there is a danger of the judge being influenced in an innocent way by the TV commentators?

Thought something similar - although I know it would be impossible and have its flaws - but I don't like how the judges are swayed by the crowd.

Thats more prevelant and more of a concern IMO.

im all for it. About time

Yes good decision

all they need to do now is change that archaic cuts rule we still have.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:all they need to do now is change that archaic cuts rule we still have.

Ye that is a terrible rule and needs to be changed

chris s wrote: There are plenty of eliminator and English title fights taking place on non-televised shows and this will put promoters off staging them and who can blame them.

Are they? I've notice very few indeed.

Horse wrote:I don't see the benefit.

I haven't noticed that referees score fights any worse on average than three ringside judges.

Are people sure this will make things any better?

Are you joking pal?? Did you see Fury v McDermott and the subsequent decision. Its a safety measure against one idiot watching and scoring a fight through his back-side. Its not bullet prrof but its very much over-due.

Referees simply should not be judging a fight

liamlion wrote: Referees simply should not be judging a fight

I agree, although on Small Hall shows, I think its a necessity.

Whilst costs is often thrown up as a negative aspect of using 3 judges it will only add about £300 in fees and travelling expenses for 3 judges. Based on the whole cost of the promotion this change will lead to a very small percentage rise in a promoters costs.

maninthemiddle wrote:Whilst costs is often thrown up as a negative aspect of using 3 judges it will only add about £300 in fees and travelling expenses for 3 judges. .

Not even that on big shows, of course, because there are usually at least 3 referees as part of the event anyway. I'm sure they could "double up" as judges.

Even if a person is paid "per contest" they officiate, it still saves on travel expenses and the like.


However, on a small hall show £300 may well be the only profilt margin.

liamlion wrote:Are you joking pal?? Did you see Fury v McDermott and the subsequent decision. Its a safety measure against one idiot watching and scoring a fight through his back-side. Its not bullet prrof but its very much over-due.

Referees simply should not be judging a fight

That was just one fight and the only real problem was with the wide scoring in favour of Fury, not Fury winning.

I don't think things will be any better because of this change.

I think they should perhaps even go furhter, and have 5 judges for world title fights.

Other than practical issues, (where would the sit etc) the more judges would, in theory, be better.

i like it

whicker wrote:I think they should perhaps even go furhter, and have 5 judges for world title fights.

Other than practical issues, (where would the sit etc) the more judges would, in theory, be better.

1 on each side thats just 1 more seat and 1 watching TV

At last!!!!

DG. wrote:At last!!!!

i recon you'll be banned soon. i dont need to flag the post