BoxRec

We have seen time & again when people call boxing decisions robberies or say the bout is scored unfairly.

The problem is, the bout basically comes down to one man's opinion (3 x times) now this is all very well & good but different personalities obviously favour different styles - just like us fight fans do.

Some people like come forward aggression, where some like cuter work - like parrying attacks, setting traps & countering.

A perfect example of this is the two Ward Vs Kovalev fights where many people scored the fight to their own personal preference, which was the reason why there was so much debate about the outcomes.

How can this be solved?

I've heard people say the judges need to be back-stage watching the fight on a TV screen with no sound, so they can't be influenced by the crowd, but I'm not for this being the answer, as if your watching a screen you basically rely on what the cameraman shows you.

For me, they judges need to be in the arena (ringside) as they are now, scattered across different sides of the ring to appreciate the fight from all angles.

Now here's my thought:-

Rather than having one judge on 3 sides of the ring scoring the fight, why can't we have 3 judges on each side of the ring?

The judges score the fight independently, but the majority decision has to concur with the other two judges who are sat on their side of the ring.

So if Judge 1 scores Round 1 to fighter A, and so does Judge 2, but Judge 3 scores it to fighter B - the majority rule & the round gets awarded to fighter A.

So the card for say the "centre judges" would read Round 1 = 10-9 to fighter A. The 3 individual judges still make up one individual scorecard, but as a collective.

As would the other 6 judges on the other two sides of the ring. (left judges & right judges)

You could still score a round 10-10, but it would only count as a even round if one of your two colleagues from your side of the ring also scored it as a 10-10 round. i.e) the majority rule.

What do you think?

At the end of the day you still get your 3 scorecards read out, but the scorecards should be more reflective of the result. Plus you can't buy an individual judge off

Here's what Stephen "Breadman" Edwards had to say on the matter via the BS website:

"First off judges have to stop getting paid by Promoters. Judges need to be state employees on salary. I also think judges need to re qualify yearly. They need to be graded by esteemed panels. They can’t rest on their laurels of experience. Performance is more important than experience. How well you do something is more important than how long you have been doing it for.

When judges turn in scorecards that are too far off from consensus opinion they need to explain their reasoning specifically. A finding has to be rendered if this judge is corrupt or incompetent or just had an off night. Then after the finding a punishment needs to be in place.

I also think there should be 5 judges. One on each side of the ring so all of the angles can be factored in. The 5th just should be able to watch the fight on a monitor with no commentating but sound. He can hear, referee instructions and punches landed but no influential commentary. Nothing is fool proof when you have subjective scoring but I think this would greatly help."

Some of his opinions are already being considered by the WBC and the WBO.

I don't think the sanctioning bodies should have their own judges. The judges should always be employed by the commissions. However, I think there should be some training required specifically from a sanctioning body because their rules could be a little different, so the officials could receive some sort of certification from the sanctioning body or bodies which would expire after a certain amount of time and then they would have to renew it.

I don't think more judges is gonna solve anything. You don't need more of 'em, you need better ones and there needs to be a safeguard against promoters providing any "incentives" for them to score in their guys' favor.

Kilsby wrote:Rather than having one judge on 3 sides of the ring scoring the fight, why can't we have 3 judges on each side of the ring?

That would work.. That's 12 judges.. In world-class gymnastics competitions they use 12 judges who are former top competitors and coaches. They throw out the high and low scores and average the rest.. That gives a much more accurate result than Boxing's system.. It should be used in all World Title Fights.

In sharp contrast, Boxing will use 3 half blind old farts to judge World Title Fights. The only qualifications are poor vision, low intelligence, attention deficit disorder ... and being appointed by an interested insider.

Why is everybody intent on perfecting everything ? the controversies are integral to any sport, the human errors, the miscalculations the down right cheats that got away with it, its the reality of it all that keeps us interested, otherwise what's the point ?

It doesn't keep us interested littlepug... What it does is make Boxing a laughing stock and nobody wants to watch it because of the corruption.

Look at the Ward-Kovalev rematch -- even though it was a great and competitive fight most people didn't want to watch it... They knew it would be fixed.

Kalan wrote:It doesn't keep us interested littlepug... What it does is make Boxing a laughing stock and nobody wants to watch it because of the corruption.

Look at the Ward-Kovalev rematch -- even though it was a great and competitive fight most people didn't want to watch it... They knew it would be fixed.

Most people didn't watch it because it wasn't interesting not because of being fixed.

Judges should never watch on a monitor that's just a terrible idea.

Every week there are poor decisions in all sports...that's they way it will always be... If Ward and Kov were tennis players they'd face each other a dozen or more times over their careers. This would go some way to ironing out the wrinkles.

The biggest problem is the top guys don't face each other enough.

TV gives better views than being locked to one position by the ring.

I've been for judges scoring remotely.
In the arena watching the fight from multiple angles in a short time is a no brainer, replays from different angles we all know they're good.
Challenge for the judges is to squeeze all their knowhow into 60 seconds between rounds.

I think you nailed the problem on the OP.Different people will score for what they like and that in itself is unique in terms of deciding sports matches.

There is no set guideline across all 3 judges on what to score for so its down to that individual and what they prefer and that just cannot be right especially in a close and competitive fight.

There needs to be an overhaul of how fights are scored but I accept this weakens the history of the sport and all the champions that have gone previously,its a tricky balance to get right.

I think having officials paid for by promoters is ridiculous and has to stop for starters.Having ex fighters becoming judges and officials could improve the standard of scoring as it would in most sports,however I would expect any ex fighters to have no affiliation to the promoters or governing body.

Maybe adding some sort of technology that is available like sensors strapped to parts of the fighter to monitor punch power and what constitutes power punches etc,movement and evasiveness could also be monitored better.Punch stats would be more accurate.The technology is available so I dont know why they dont use it,if anything it could give the trainer some hard facts and feedback about his fighters performance.

I think a lot of dodgy scorecards are corrupt but sometimes I honestly believe these judges just score these fights wrong.It doesnt have to be a corrupt card every time sometimes they really do believe the score they have is the right one.

Probably the number one thing that needs sorting in this sport right now.

It's pretty good the way it is ...

... but the solution to controversial decisions might be ...

... that the ref has the power to call any decision into question ...

... at which point the fight officially becomes a "decision-pending" outcome ...

... and stays that way until it is reviewed by the governing body or some independent board ...

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Kalan wrote:It doesn't keep us interested littlepug... What it does is make Boxing a laughing stock and nobody wants to watch it because of the corruption.

... so get lost already ...

Something really needs to be done and it needs to get done quickly because bad decisions are the number one reason why fans leave the sport. A boxing fan can sit down and begin watching a fight between 2 boxers he's never heard of before and within 5 minutes, he's begun rooting for one of them to win. It's impossible to watch boxing without being vested into one of the participants. It's not like basketball, hockey or football where you don't care who wins, you just want to see a good game. Boxing is not like that. It's impossible to watch boxing without becoming passionate about the outcome. You can say you don't care....you do. We all do. Otherwise, you wouldn't watch it.

With all that said, i'm tired of the way the sport is being run. No two ref's call a fight the same way...judging has become so subjective that you rarely have 2 judges agree on a winner of a round, much less come up with the same score for the deserving fighter. Boxing needs to strip and refinish the paint job in terms of the rules and how a fight is judged. Instant replay MUST be instituted...10-10 rounds need to be encouraged in a round in which no one deserved...6 judges would be nice as i feel it get you closer to a truer mean of scores. Something has to be done...but the problem is that the ambiguity inside the sport of boxing is where the people with the money are able to move in the shadows and keep that money-make more of it. So it will never change.

world ranked wrote:

Kalan wrote:It doesn't keep us interested littlepug... What it does is make Boxing a laughing stock and nobody wants to watch it because of the corruption.

Look at the Ward-Kovalev rematch -- even though it was a great and competitive fight most people didn't want to watch it... They knew it would be fixed.

Most people didn't watch it because it wasn't interesting not because of being fixed.

Plenty of people would have watched it if it had been on ESPN. PPV has gotten out of hand and I believe that the business of boxing has finally recognized it.

Tanzio wrote:Plenty of people would have watched it if it had been on ESPN. PPV has gotten out of hand and I believe that the business of boxing has finally recognized it.

That is one reason why a lot of people watched Pacquiao vs. Horn, because it was on ESPN.

Remember when a network would experiment sometimes announcing the judges score or combined score after each round. Even that didn't seem to help. Haven't seen that done in quite some time.

Tanzio wrote:

world ranked wrote:

Kalan wrote:It doesn't keep us interested littlepug... What it does is make Boxing a laughing stock and nobody wants to watch it because of the corruption.

Look at the Ward-Kovalev rematch -- even though it was a great and competitive fight most people didn't want to watch it... They knew it would be fixed.

Most people didn't watch it because it wasn't interesting not because of being fixed.

Plenty of people would have watched it if it had been on ESPN. PPV has gotten out of hand and I believe that the business of boxing has finally recognized it.

PPV is still in business just not many fighters merit being put on ppv. That model isn't dead yet.

world ranked wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

world ranked wrote:
Most people didn't watch it because it wasn't interesting not because of being fixed.

Plenty of people would have watched it if it had been on ESPN. PPV has gotten out of hand and I believe that the business of boxing has finally recognized it.

PPV is still in business just not many fighters merit being put on ppv. That model isn't dead yet.

I did not say that it is dead. You cannot sell PPVs if you have not nurtured the market. In order to do that more people need to be exposed to the product, which needs to be packaged properly.

People will watch boxing but they are not going to pay ridiculous prices for anything but legitimately elite level competition that has been marketed well. They will stream it or just wait for the Youtube version.

Cable and network TV still have significant commercial power when utilized efficiently. The Pac v Horner fight worked great with the exception of the packaging, which was far too weighted toward Pac and accentuating the perception of injustice in boxing through the commentary.

Stephen A Smith was particularly obnoxious and damaging. He was like a cheerleader for the casual "that's why we don't watch boxing" fans. The ones who whine and cry corruption every time a decision does not go the way they would have preferred. The ones who believe that the majority opinion is evidence, no matter how it was manufactured.

I am all for an in-depth investigation into boxing, including the ability of commentating, footage, etc., to form opinion.

Ezzard wrote:Judges should never watch on a monitor that's just a terrible idea.

Every week there are poor decisions in all sports...that's they way it will always be... If Ward and Kov were tennis players they'd face each other a dozen or more times over their careers. This would go some way to ironing out the wrinkles.

The biggest problem is the top guys don't face each other enough.

Judges absolutely should be watching TVs. The view is miles better than ringside and then they would all be seeing the same thing. They should be in the back away from the noise with monitoring to make sure there is no collusion.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Judges should never watch on a monitor that's just a terrible idea.

Every week there are poor decisions in all sports...that's they way it will always be... If Ward and Kov were tennis players they'd face each other a dozen or more times over their careers. This would go some way to ironing out the wrinkles.

The biggest problem is the top guys don't face each other enough.

Judges absolutely should be watching TVs. The view is miles better than ringside and then they would all be seeing the same thing. They should be in the back away from the noise with monitoring to make sure there is no collusion.

All the announcers in the four major sports sit way up there for a better view. Not in Boxing though. The judges have the worst view along with the Boxing Announcers themselves.

Tanzio wrote:

world ranked wrote:

Tanzio wrote: Plenty of people would have watched it if it had been on ESPN. PPV has gotten out of hand and I believe that the business of boxing has finally recognized it.

PPV is still in business just not many fighters merit being put on ppv. That model isn't dead yet.

I did not say that it is dead. You cannot sell PPVs if you have not nurtured the market. In order to do that more people need to be exposed to the product, which needs to be packaged properly.

People will watch boxing but they are not going to pay ridiculous prices for anything but legitimately elite level competition that has been marketed well. They will stream it or just wait for the Youtube version.

Cable and network TV still have significant commercial power when utilized efficiently. The Pac v Horner fight worked great with the exception of the packaging, which was far too weighted toward Pac and accentuating the perception of injustice in boxing through the commentary.

Stephen A Smith was particularly obnoxious and damaging. He was like a cheerleader for the casual "that's why we don't watch boxing" fans. The ones who whine and cry corruption every time a decision does not go the way they would have preferred. The ones who believe that the majority opinion is evidence, no matter how it was manufactured.

I am all for an in-depth investigation into boxing, including the ability of commentating, footage, etc., to form opinion.

I disagree with your opinion of Stephen A Smith. What he said was damaging but it wasn't his fault in HIS eyes he saw a robbery and said its not good for the sport on that platform and I agree. I had the same thought at the time he had. I'm as hardcore as they get. To the ppv market point there's ony a handful of guys that can sell ppv. PPV's aren't sold by fights but by individual brands that attract attention and unfortunely its not many.

world ranked wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

world ranked wrote:
PPV is still in business just not many fighters merit being put on ppv. That model isn't dead yet.

I did not say that it is dead. You cannot sell PPVs if you have not nurtured the market. In order to do that more people need to be exposed to the product, which needs to be packaged properly.

People will watch boxing but they are not going to pay ridiculous prices for anything but legitimately elite level competition that has been marketed well. They will stream it or just wait for the Youtube version.

Cable and network TV still have significant commercial power when utilized efficiently. The Pac v Horner fight worked great with the exception of the packaging, which was far too weighted toward Pac and accentuating the perception of injustice in boxing through the commentary.

Stephen A Smith was particularly obnoxious and damaging. He was like a cheerleader for the casual "that's why we don't watch boxing" fans. The ones who whine and cry corruption every time a decision does not go the way they would have preferred. The ones who believe that the majority opinion is evidence, no matter how it was manufactured.

I am all for an in-depth investigation into boxing, including the ability of commentating, footage, etc., to form opinion.

I disagree with your opinion of Stephen A Smith. What he said was damaging but it wasn't his fault in HIS eyes he saw a robbery and said its not good for the sport on that platform and I agree. I had the same thought at the time he had. I'm as hardcore as they get. To the ppv market point there's ony a handful of guys that can sell ppv. PPV's aren't sold by fights but by individual brands that attract attention and unfortunely its not many.

Smith doesn't no sh!t about boxing. He proved it that night repetitively. He just has a big mouth on a big stage. Tim Bradley was far more measured and accurate with his analysis. If the broadcast had been properly balanced, or if Bradley was just as big a loudmouth as Smith, it might have been ok.

Instead we had Smith and Atlas whipping up a frenzy over a close fight that could have gone either way. I had it 115-112 for Pac realtime but I have no major issue with someone seeing it 115-113 Horn. Basically I had the same view as Bradley.

Tanzio wrote:

world ranked wrote:

Tanzio wrote: I did not say that it is dead. You cannot sell PPVs if you have not nurtured the market. In order to do that more people need to be exposed to the product, which needs to be packaged properly.

People will watch boxing but they are not going to pay ridiculous prices for anything but legitimately elite level competition that has been marketed well. They will stream it or just wait for the Youtube version.

Cable and network TV still have significant commercial power when utilized efficiently. The Pac v Horner fight worked great with the exception of the packaging, which was far too weighted toward Pac and accentuating the perception of injustice in boxing through the commentary.

Stephen A Smith was particularly obnoxious and damaging. He was like a cheerleader for the casual "that's why we don't watch boxing" fans. The ones who whine and cry corruption every time a decision does not go the way they would have preferred. The ones who believe that the majority opinion is evidence, no matter how it was manufactured.

I am all for an in-depth investigation into boxing, including the ability of commentating, footage, etc., to form opinion.

I disagree with your opinion of Stephen A Smith. What he said was damaging but it wasn't his fault in HIS eyes he saw a robbery and said its not good for the sport on that platform and I agree. I had the same thought at the time he had. I'm as hardcore as they get. To the ppv market point there's ony a handful of guys that can sell ppv. PPV's aren't sold by fights but by individual brands that attract attention and unfortunely its not many.

Smith doesn't no sh!t about boxing. He proved it that night repetitively. He just has a big mouth on a big stage. Tim Bradley was far more measured and accurate with his analysis. If the broadcast had been properly balanced, or if Bradley was just as big a loudmouth as Smith, it might have been ok.

Instead we had Smith and Atlas whipping up a frenzy over a close fight that could have gone either way. I had it 115-112 for Pac realtime but I have no major issue with someone seeing it 115-113 Horn. Basically I had the same view as Bradley.

Bradley was like that because he was Horn previously getting a decision they he didn't deserve so he didn't want to be to judgemental. Smith saw a robbery which isn't out the realm of possibility.