BoxRec

In light of the ongoing worthwhile discussion on the Kovalev v Ward result, it may be worth remembering what the WBC judges supervisor said in an article in the either the Boxing News or Boxing Monthly during the summer.
He said that at any fight when there are judges, regardless of how many people are present , the three judges are amongst a small handful of people present who are totally concentrating on every second of the round. The round stats people are doing the same, but EVERYONE else experiences some sort of distraction. Journalists are thinking about what they'll write, commentators are thinking what they're going to say and fans at ringside can turn away for any number of reasons and can be influenced by those around them . It's the same for TV viewers.
In addition the judges score a round and that's it gone, they don't know how anyone else has scored that round , and the next session is then judged separately .
How many of us for example perhaps score the first few rounds for a particular boxer in a close fight and then feel the need to 'give' a few rounds to the other guy- just to be fair!
We do get bad decisions, but how many of us are truly unbiased when scoring a fight round by round?

dalcumly wrote:In light of the ongoing worthwhile discussion on the Kovalev v Ward result, it may be worth remembering what the WBC judges supervisor said in an article in the either the Boxing News or Boxing Monthly during the summer.
He said that at any fight when there are judges, regardless of how many people are present , the three judges are amongst a small handful of people present who are totally concentrating on every second of the round. The round stats people are doing the same, but EVERYONE else experiences some sort of distraction. Journalists are thinking about what they'll write, commentators are thinking what they're going to say and fans at ringside can turn away for any number of reasons and can be influenced by those around them . It's the same for TV viewers.
In addition the judges score a round and that's it gone, they don't know how anyone else has scored that round , and the next session is then judged separately .
How many of us for example perhaps score the first few rounds for a particular boxer in a close fight and then feel the need to 'give' a few rounds to the other guy- just to be fair!
We do get bad decisions, but how many of us are truly unbiased when scoring a fight round by round?

Agreed pal, judges have a hard job but its subjective some judges prefer a certain style and score the fight based on that its all very confusing especially at the top level

I watch most fights on mute (more people should do this if they want to be impartial) and generally give my full attention to the action. TV also provides much better views than the judges get.

A score like 97-93 Hooker, which isn't really uncommon these days, is utterly terrible whether or not the scoring judge was fully concentrating. The state of judging in the sport is poor, and with all the shitt that gets turned out it's hard for me to think it's merely incompetence.