BoxRec

There is a way to eliminate the problem of Judges getting it wrong. Go with the Majority for each round.
If 2 judges voted for Fury in a particular round,
Then he gets the round.
This Eliminates the Dodgy incompitant judge.
If one votes for Wilder and one for Fury and the third judge scores it even then it's an even round ...
It's not too hard.

I’d prefer they allow one person to judge the fight. And if they get it wrong we get to stone them to death and pick the next clown.

Not defending the judges but it makes me wonder how accurate they can judge a fight at ring side. There is no way Deontay won the fight yet some of the interviews with fighters who were also at the fight had Deontay winning, I think judges need to Judge whilst locked up in a room watching it live on tv, obviously with no commentary. The only way anybody could have had The draw would be if they thought Deontay was connecting with some of his punches, whereas people watching on tv were in awe of the way Tyson was making him miss.

Judges have always sucked. They could at least give them a fighting chance and have them score it on TV in silence.

Announce a pool of 25 for major fights. Get them all there. Choose the 3 who will be used randomly ten minutes before the start.

People will be less able to afford to buy that many off just on the off-chance they will be picked.

gp. wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 20:26 Announce a pool of 25 for major fights. Get them all there. Choose the 3 who will be used randomly ten minutes before the start.

People will be less able to afford to buy that many off just on the off-chance they will be picked.

They're going to fly them all in and provide accommodations for all of them?

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 19:43 Judges have always sucked. They could at least give them a fighting chance and have them score it on TV in silence.

I agree with large screen in silence but that is not going to eliminate the controversy. How many of those who cry the loudest about decisions and judges watch fights that way. Most don’t bother even scoring it, but if what they perceived to have happened is not gratified by a “correct” decision, they cry corruption, inept judges, etc.

That will not change, but we would get more accurate scoring, nonetheless.

They don't understand how horrible some judging is just by incompetence.

The subjective nature of judging is never going to satisfy everyone. The majority of decisions are correct. But at the pinnacle of the sport you often end up with the closest fights (ggg canelo etc) - which then become the hardest to score & subsequently the most controversial with half the populace screaming robbery.

RKY wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 23:17 The subjective nature of judging is never going to satisfy everyone. The majority of decisions are correct. But at the pinnacle of the sport you often end up with the closest fights (ggg canelo etc) - which then become the hardest to score & subsequently the most controversial with half the populace screaming robbery.

If there were a database of judges eligible for any given venue, the judges for a particular card could be random-selected by a boxing commission from another part of the USA, for example the Massachussets commission nominate who the judges for Caesar's Palace are going to be out of a list of those who have registered as licensed to judge in Las Vegas.

Maybe the Nevada commission will be selecting judges for Atlantic City for example.

This could be done on a rotating basis so that promoters in one location don't get too cosy with the commission who select their judges, i.e. it might be Massachussets this time but maybe next time it might be Illinois, it shouldn't be too difficult to generate a random method of rotating the commissions.

Just a thought.

Judges will always be "crap" in the eyes of TV watchers, since they are watching from different angle (and only one angle), hear the voices and do not have re-runs.
And yes, some of them are byased, corrupt, stupid etc.....human, as we all.

That's why my father always told me -"KO the bastard"

BIGDOUG58 wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 18:47 There is a way to eliminate the problem of Judges getting it wrong. Go with the Majority for each round.
If 2 judges voted for Fury in a particular round,
Then he gets the round.
This Eliminates the Dodgy incompitant judge.
If one votes for Wilder and one for Fury and the third judge scores it even then it's an even round ...
It's not too hard.

It is not hard.... It is corrupt

bigman1968 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 10:53 Judges will always be "crap" in the eyes of TV watchers, since they are watching from different angle (and only one angle), hear the voices and do not have re-runs.
And yes, some of them are byased, corrupt, stupid etc.....human, as we all.

That's why my father always told me -"KO the bastard"

Pac KTFOs Horn? 0 controversy.

3G KTFOs GingerHead? 0 controversy.

Fury KTF . . . never mind.

This problem is ineradicable on the global level.

DrDuke wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 12:52 This problem is ineradicable on the global level.

Subjectivity is biatch, aint it, “doctor?”

Cobwebcat wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 13:28 The judges are appointed and paid by the promoter.

If you make sure the promoters fighter wins you get invited back.

That’s the problem.

Absolutely. That's why the problem can't be solved.

DrDuke wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 13:42

Cobwebcat wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 13:28 The judges are appointed and paid by the promoter.

If you make sure the promoters fighter wins you get invited back.

That’s the problem.

Absolutely. That's why the problem can't be solved.

If that were the only problem, it would be solvable.

Cobwebcat wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 13:28 The judges are appointed and paid by the promoter.

If you make sure the promoters fighter wins you get invited back.

That’s the problem.

Indirectly yes, but isn't it the local commission who appoint and pay the judges which gets charged to the promotion?

Clearly this being 'one stage removed' isn't enough to solve the problem of judges ingratiating themselves with the house thereby encouraging repeat appointments.

I put forward what I thought might be a solution (or at least make the bastards work to beat the system) in my post above. Anyone think that could have legs or is it a daft idea, in which case, why do you say that?

BIGDOUG58 wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 18:47 There is a way to eliminate the problem of Judges getting it wrong. Go with the Majority for each round.
If 2 judges voted for Fury in a particular round,
Then he gets the round.
This Eliminates the Dodgy incompitant judge.
If one votes for Wilder and one for Fury and the third judge scores it even then it's an even round ...
It's not too hard.

The majority isn't always right. I think we've all seen unanimous decisions that we disagree with.

The judge who called it for Wilder scored some rounds for Fury that the other judges had for Wilder. Of course there has always been incompetence and corruption but some of these rounds we argue over are very close. Highly subjective.

Tony1244 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 17:14

BIGDOUG58 wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 18:47 There is a way to eliminate the problem of Judges getting it wrong. Go with the Majority for each round.
If 2 judges voted for Fury in a particular round,
Then he gets the round.
This Eliminates the Dodgy incompitant judge.
If one votes for Wilder and one for Fury and the third judge scores it even then it's an even round ...
It's not too hard.

The majority isn't always right. I think we've all seen unanimous decisions that we disagree with.

The judge who called it for Wilder scored some rounds for Fury that the other judges had for Wilder. Of course there has always been incompetence and corruption but some of these rounds we argue over are very close. Highly subjective.

Don't all judges sit in different locations in order for them to all have a different viewpoint?

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 22:01

gp. wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 20:26 Announce a pool of 25 for major fights. Get them all there. Choose the 3 who will be used randomly ten minutes before the start.

People will be less able to afford to buy that many off just on the off-chance they will be picked.

They're going to fly them all in and provide accommodations for all of them?

It wouldn't matter. It's not brown envelopes changing hands that influences judging. It's the first class plane tickets, fancy accommodation and slap up meals, paid for by the home fighter's promoter, that encourage them to weight cards in their favour.

Judges are not earning megabucks. They want to be invited back to the party next time around.

oogiebe wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 17:15

Tony1244 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 17:14

BIGDOUG58 wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 18:47 There is a way to eliminate the problem of Judges getting it wrong. Go with the Majority for each round.
If 2 judges voted for Fury in a particular round,
Then he gets the round.
This Eliminates the Dodgy incompitant judge.
If one votes for Wilder and one for Fury and the third judge scores it even then it's an even round ...
It's not too hard.

The majority isn't always right. I think we've all seen unanimous decisions that we disagree with.

The judge who called it for Wilder scored some rounds for Fury that the other judges had for Wilder. Of course there has always been incompetence and corruption but some of these rounds we argue over are very close. Highly subjective.

Don't all judges sit in different locations in order for them to all have a different viewpoint?

All of them sit in fairly low down positions, with action on the opposite side of the ring, or with bodies in the way, obscured from view by varying degrees.

However you scored the fight at the weekend, it's a poor system.

WhenWeWereKings wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 18:49 I’d prefer they allow one person to judge the fight. And if they get it wrong we get to stone them to death and pick the next clown.

oogiebe wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 17:15

Tony1244 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2018, 17:14

BIGDOUG58 wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 18:47 There is a way to eliminate the problem of Judges getting it wrong. Go with the Majority for each round.
If 2 judges voted for Fury in a particular round,
Then he gets the round.
This Eliminates the Dodgy incompitant judge.
If one votes for Wilder and one for Fury and the third judge scores it even then it's an even round ...
It's not too hard.

The majority isn't always right. I think we've all seen unanimous decisions that we disagree with.

The judge who called it for Wilder scored some rounds for Fury that the other judges had for Wilder. Of course there has always been incompetence and corruption but some of these rounds we argue over are very close. Highly subjective.

Don't all judges sit in different locations in order for them to all have a different viewpoint?

Good point. An argument can be made that these close rounds should be scored even, but judges now are discouraged from doing so. I think one judge scored something like 8 rounds even for Duran-Leonard 1.