Can scoring in boxing be fixed?

[Ruthless-RKO]

ESPN analysts have nothing better to do right now, so they've had a little debate about this.

Controversial decisions in boxing have long been a common occurrence. The judges, or maybe just one or two of them, will see a fight one way, but the broadcasters and large chunks of fans and media might see the result differently.

Sometimes, there is an honest difference of opinion in a truly close fight. Other times, there are scores widely deemed as outrageous. So what to do about it? There have been various suggestions over the years, including moving to open scoring or adding judges to the panel that -- some would think -- might improve the outcome of fights that go the distance. So what might work and what might not? Dan Rafael and Steve Kim discuss.
-----------------------------------
How could boxing optimize open scoring?

Rafael: I have always been against -- and always will be against -- open scoring. To me, there is no way to optimize it. I reject the entire concept of open scoring and even though it is used regularly by the WBC in some locations, it is generally not allowed in the United States, which is a good thing.

Why? It destroys any suspense of a possible decision and would inevitably alter the strategy of a fighter who knew the score. If a fighter knows he is way ahead, he would undoubtedly coast.

Under the current usage of open scoring, the scores are announced after the fourth and eighth rounds. Shane Mosley once told me if he knew he was ahead after eight rounds, he could easily get through four rounds without being touched. That renders a quarter of the fight worthless. And even if open scores are announced that seem a bit off, all it would do is instill frustration in fans/media for the remainder of a bout.

Kim: I'm not a fan of open scoring. I was admittedly a big advocate of it, until I actually saw it implemented.

Mark "Too Sharp" Johnson faced Chaiya Pothang for the vacant IBF junior bantamweight title in 1999. Johnson, for much of the fight, was putting on an entertaining clinic in front of his hometown fans at the MCI Center in Washington, but as he learned that he had built a big lead on the cards when the scorecards were read after the eighth round, he proceeded to "run out the clock." It absolutely sucked the drama and entertainment value from the fight.

Johnson admitted afterward that knowing he had a big lead played a huge part in his late-round tactics. So yeah, be careful what you wish for.

With that said, if you are going to utilize open scoring, first there needs to be unbiased, competent judges. That's first and foremost. No system of scoring fights will work without that. And instead of announcing the scores after every fourth round (which is how the WBC currently does it when they choose to utilize the method), do it after the third and sixth rounds -- and that's it. Let the participating boxers know where they stand, and how much work they have to do. That will keep the drama of the event and the announcement of the final tallies. That's a boxing tradition that absolutely needs to be preserved.

-----------------------------------
Should boxing add more judges? Why? What are the pros/cons of the current system and potential solutions?

Rafael: The solution is not more judges. It's better judges. The current system might not be perfect, but it generally works. Adding more judges would make for more potentially poor scores. The idea behind three judges is that they each sit at a different vantage point on three sides of the ring. Where are you putting additional judges? What is the reason to do so? There is none.

Five judges, for example, are not better than three. Quantity is not better than quality. Train judges to be better and more consistent.

Kim: Absolutely not. I get the argument to have more judges on different sides of the ring, and you'd have more vantage points to score a fight. But the reality is that there is already a shortage of trusted ringside arbiters, so what you'd be doing by adding more judges to a fight, is employing unqualified or incompetent scorers, just to fill out a mandated number.

For the time being, boxing needs to utilize the judges who can be trusted more, and remove those who are consistently dubious.

-----------------------------------
Should the referee score the fight?

Rafael: Referees used to score fights and in some domestic bouts in the United Kingdom, the referee serves as the sole judge. I do not think this is proper.

The referee's job should be to protect the fighters and enforce the rules. Period. They do not need any other distractions. Over the years I've talked to referees about this issue and no referee has ever said anything other than the referee should be concerned with officiating the fight.

Kim: No. The job of the third man in the ring is to make sure the two boxers are following the rules and kept as safe as possible. That's already a very daunting task, I wouldn't put any more on their plate. Besides, just because somebody might be an elite referee, there's no guarantee that he would be a competent scorer.

-----------------------------------
How far should instant replay go?

Rafael: I think jurisdictions that use replay today generally have it right. You use it to determine whether a knockdown was a punch or a slip, if a cut is from a head butt or a punch, or if a knockout blow was before or after the bell -- specific fight-changing moments. I also like that the determinations, when used, are made quickly by a replay official such as what they use in Nevada. They are in contact with the production truck and can easily get a replay during and between a round. It seems to work.

Replay should not interfere with a fight or delay it. It's one thing for a baseball or football game to be delayed briefly while a replay is reviewed, but in boxing any extra time for an opponent to rest can change the fight. So as long as replay is handled quickly and takes no more than the time between rounds to review something, that is fine. We don't need any more than what we already have. But it should be used in all states.

Kim: Very simple -- it should be used to determine if a knockdown is legitimate, and in the case of cuts, confirming if they were caused by a punch or with an accidental or intentional foul. Low blows could also be reviewed. Just like in other sports, it can be utilized in certain instances, but the danger lies in relying on it to a point where it starts to disrupt the natural flow of action in a fight.

-----------------------------------
Is there a way to integrate punch stats into the scoring system? How would you do it?

Rafael: Punch statistics are not meant to be used to score a fight and I would not make it part of any official scoring. What punch stats are is a good general guide to how a fight goes, but in an unofficial manner. It stands to reason that a fighter with a large advantage in punches thrown and landed and a higher connect percentage usually is going to win the fight. But the stats can't account for how hard a punch is. And they are meaningless if a fighter, for example, lands 50 punches that do no damage and the opponent lands one that knocks out the opponent.

Boxing is simply not a stat-based sport like baseball or basketball. Also, the reality is punch stats are compiled by human beings pushing buttons at ringside and often watching a fight remotely on television. That should not play into the official scoring of a fight. The folks who count the punches are well-trained and do a good job, but they are measuring only quantity and kind of punch, not the quality of a punch.

Kim: I simply wouldn't do that. I think punch stats can be very useful in reviewing and breaking down a fight, even in helping to break down an upcoming contest, but to actually be part of the scoring system? I don't think it's realistic, and to me the biggest issue is that while punch stats can judge the quantity of punches, they don't really tell you the quality, or effect of them. And this is what professional prizefighting is at its core, compared to the amateur ranks. It's about the damage inflicted.

For instance, if we have a fight where fighter A is being outlanded by a few punches in every round, but it's fighter B, who seemingly rattles the cage of his opponent on a consistent basis, and really bangs him up -- I'm giving most of those rounds to fighter B.

After all, as the great Sugar Ray Robinson once said, "We're in the hurt business."

-----------------------------------
How would you improve the quality of the judges?


Rafael: Training, training, training. The key to me is that judges need to score fights on criteria that is more specific than it currently is and that fighters are also aware of what the judges are specifically looking for, so there can be no complaints. Right now, the criteria is a bit open-ended and not specific enough: ring generalship; clean, hard punching; effective aggression; defense.

Also, judges need to be held more accountable for universally poor scorecards and be disciplined for really bad ones. I've seen judges turn in horrific cards and be back in the seat for a big fight a week later. That is not acceptable. All that said, judging a fight is subjective, so there will always be disagreements, and that is OK. It is what makes the world go 'round. Controversy and boxing will always go hand-in-hand and, frankly, that element is part of the attraction of the sport.

Kim: In my view, there has to be more accountability. For years we'd see the same set of judges at almost every big fight card. The same judges who would sometimes hand in some of the most questionable cards, eventually return to their post. If there is no threat of discipline, what is the impetus for these individuals to actually improve their performance?

Other sports routinely grade officials and based on how they are evaluated, they face removal from their jobs. This rarely, if ever, happens in boxing.

Having consistent seminars and actively recruiting competent and fair-minded people to train as judges (making them earn their way up the ladder, beginning with amateur fights), would create a fresh, new set of judges on a fairly consistent basis.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Thoughts?

[margaret thatcher]

Thoughts?

To this day

[Heretic]

It could be fixed.

It will not be fixed.

Actually on second thought... Fixed is just what it is

[Heretic]

There is actually very simple way to fix scoring.

Make it run so that the comission sanctioning the bout provide the judges. Make it so that it is secret which judges will be used. Big reveal on fight night.

So for example. Fight in UK. The BBBBBofC provides the judges. The names of the judges are revealed on fight night. BBBBBBBBofC pays all the costs and fees of the judges.

This would fix the scoring i n boxing.

Or make it lot harder to fix

[snake33]

Secret judges would be good.
Also, five judges, throw out the extremes.

[Thomastearns]

Secret judges would be good.
Also, five judges, throw out the extremes.

Yes, secret judges. Why not?
At the worst it will cost the cartels a load more to get results.

With untold millions of dollars at stake they'd have to put ALL the high profile judges on a payroll, just in case.

Unless of course, they're already on a payroll and the whole judging thing is a charade.
I would not put it past them.


Probably the only sure way would be some form of AI. I'd take that now.

History clearly tells us time and time again what humans are like when it comes to being honest and straight forward when the stakes are high.

Simply not in their nature.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

If they told judges to score close rounds 10 to 9, and clear rounds 10 to 8 ... that would end 90 percent of controversial decisions. It would be that easy

[margaret thatcher]

If they told judges to score close rounds 10 to 9, and clear rounds 10 to 8 ... that would end 90 percent of controversial decisions. It would be that easy

I remember a tv judge doing that for Andre Dirrell vs Derry Edwards, and he ended up with a card like 120-95

[Onetimeonly]

Every time it comes up I say the same thing. They need to watch the fights on TV. Why should the judges be watching 3 different fights from a terrible view. Lock them in the back.

[oogiebe]

Every time it comes up I say the same thing. They need to watch the fights on TV. Why should the judges be watching 3 different fights from a terrible view. Lock them in the back.

Yup. Also make it a sound proof room. No crowd noise. Just the vid feed.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Every time it comes up I say the same thing. They need to watch the fights on TV. Why should the judges be watching 3 different fights from a terrible view. Lock them in the back.

- Your fat oafery always jiggling the same tune is fine in your fellow meathead peer group, but you sure ain't cleaning up boxing.

Asinine officiating and broadcasters have already driven boxing into a fringe sport. Typical 116-112 score reads like basketball, so that's card shark scam #1 because points aren't scored in boxing, they're deducted, in this example only 12 total.

Fat Dan never had an original thought in his life, hence his opposition to open scoring. The fighters and fans deserve it.

One of the best scored fights I like as an example is Ali/Frazier 1pt scoring where the fighters were awarded, not deducted. Joe a clear winner, but Mercante scored a draw and had to use a supplemental system in place to score for Joe, probably the KD doing it.

When Mora and Mosely stunk out the joint, the fumes seriously damaged 2 of boxing's premier "experts" when Merchant and Ring's Editor Doogie soiled themselves by screaming the other guy was robbed. In no other pro sport do we see such scoring idiocy.

Really, these guys never had an original thought in their lives much less know score a fight, but this is what we get when halfwit boxing expertise comes from endlessly munching Compufraud numbers like twinkies. Meanwhile the officials can usually guide the bout into the result they want to collect their bets which is where the real money is.

That the nascent UFC was sold for $4bil when Arum and Haymon combined would be hard pressed to collectively get $500 mil shows how far boxing has fallen. White will figure this out and ditch his boxing operations soon just like 50 did much poorer for the experience.

[ash1601]

Put judges in an empty soundproof tv room with various camera angles and watch the fights on mute.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

If they told judges to score close rounds 10 to 9, and clear rounds 10 to 8 ... that would end 90 percent of controversial decisions. It would be that easy

I remember a tv judge doing that for Andre Dirrell vs Derry Edwards, and he ended up with a card like 120-95

Exactly the right man won!

Cards are usually controversial where fight A wins his rounds by a large amount and fighter B wins his close. By any logic you have seen fighter A as the superior fighter yet because of the 10 to 9 scoring it doesnt work out that way

[KiwiRider]

Every time it comes up I say the same thing. They need to watch the fights on TV. Why should the judges be watching 3 different fights from a terrible view. Lock them in the back.

Yup. Also make it a sound proof room. No crowd noise. Just the vid feed.

I think sound is very important.
If you cut the crowd sound, you cut the fight sound.
I've been to a fight- up close, about 3 metres back from the judge. Then I watched the fight jater on TV and it was a huge difference.
Up close ringside, you can hear the difference between a hard punch and a medium to soft one. You can also hear when a glove hits a glove or tape, and when it hits flesh clean. This is important when the little guys are throwing fast combos etc.

[oogiebe]

Yup. Also make it a sound proof room. No crowd noise. Just the vid feed.

I think sound is very important.
If you cut the crowd sound, you cut the fight sound.
I've been to a fight- up close, about 3 metres back from the judge. Then I watched the fight jater on TV and it was a huge difference.
Up close ringside, you can hear the difference between a hard punch and a medium to soft one. You can also hear when a glove hits a glove or tape, and when it hits flesh clean. This is important when the little guys are throwing fast combos etc.

Good point, but now I'm wondering if the 'judges' are smart enough to actually discern a difference.

[margaret thatcher]

This are often senior citizens judging, not sure how well they hear anyway

[pound per pound]

Yes, it can be fixed.

Add five judges. Judges do not make a lot of money. Far from it. Boxing can afford an extra $200 a night. By adding 5 judges, one at each side of the ring, and one video judge, we will avoid a close fight where one judge has it 7-5, the other has it 5-7, and then a 3rd judges card comes in from outer space picking the winner by an absurd margin. I can't stand those types of decisions.

I also think the judges should be picked right after the weigh in via lottery draw. Never let the commission or the promoter pick ANY of the judges.

" Fixes " can be found, particularly late in a fight where one judges helps a fighter out by giving him a round he didn't win to result in a draw or win on his card. This is when punch stats can help. If one guy outland the other by 5 blows or more in a average punch volume round, with no knockdowns or big punches landed, he should win the round. Remember these judges make maybe $250 night at best. They are easy to bribe, and there have been too many old photos of the promoter taking them out for a dinner the night before the fight. Judges should be barred from socializing with promoters as soon as they are selected until the fight ends.

[snake33]

The only unfixable judging is unsubjective judging.
Figure skating and gymnastics have problems with this.
Unless you can measure or time it, you are left with someones opinion.

You could lessen the effect by ramping up the accuracy of punch stats.
Give 80% to raw punches and 20% to ring generalship etc.
Pretty complicated though. and still fixable.

[Enlightened-One]

"WBA: How to score a round"

As part of the Continuous Education program of the WBA Academy, the WBA International Judge, Gustavo Padilla, explains in the following video the 5 aspects that must be taken into account when scoring a round.

In professional or amateur boxing the goal is to try to connect effective punches to the opponent and avoid being hit, but these punches must be placed only on the vulnerable part of the body (above the belt).

That being said, the five major factors to score a round, in order of priority, are: Effectiveness, Attack, Defense, Technique and Sportsmanship.



Thoughts?

[Duran1970]

Sportsmanship?

[Thomastearns]

pound per pound,

"I also think the judges should be picked right after the weigh in via lottery draw. Never let the commission or the promoter pick ANY of the judges."


Yes! Great suggestion.

Definitely need some kind of ring fencing.

Too blatantly open as things currently stand.
Secret hotel and travel arrangements can be prepared beforehand as well as reserve stand-ins.

Chew on that Oscar!

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

"WBA: How to score a round"

As part of the Continuous Education program of the WBA Academy, the WBA International Judge, Gustavo Padilla, explains in the following video the 5 aspects that must be taken into account when scoring a round.

In professional or amateur boxing the goal is to try to connect effective punches to the opponent and avoid being hit, but these punches must be placed only on the vulnerable part of the body (above the belt).

That being said, the five major factors to score a round, in order of priority, are: Effectiveness, Attack, Defense, Technique and Sportsmanship.



Thoughts?

Lol sportsmanship?!?!?