BoxRec

There have been a few suggestions, what do you think can be done better?

How about a 'sudden death' round if the fight is all even. It was done at the end of a 12-rounder between Doug DeWitt and Tony Thornton in Atlantic City in 1987. The fight was all even, so the two boxed a 13th round and DeWitt won the round and the decision.

Accountability, above all, and greater diversity. Not in the PC sense, but I refuse to believe there are only a dozen or so people in the UK who are capable of scoring a fight to a fair and professional standard. I also do not think promoters should be responsible for hosting the officials; unconscious bias is a very real thing, especially in fights which are scrappy, or close, or where one fighter has a far higher profile than the other.

bennie wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 07:46 How about a 'sudden death' round if the fight is all even. It was done at the end of a 12-rounder between Doug DeWitt and Tony Thornton in Atlantic City in 1987. The fight was all even, so the two boxed a 13th round and DeWitt won the round and the decision.

I think that could prove dangerous if they are spent from a final push in the last round

Accountability is the big one. But id like some young blood,

i would be very open to judges judging from TV away from the crowd. (but then the soundtechnition has a job... isolating the punching from the crowds... whats to stop a sound tech sneakkily turning up the volume on a couple of punches here and there....) I think the biggest influence on bad cards is the crowd. Its like when people watch a broardcast with a bias comentator and walk away thinking the fight went very different to how it actualy did. If 10,000 people act like you have landed flush on someones chin when youve glanced there shoulder theres a fair chance a judge (espicialy if somethings partialy obstructing there view) will score it highly.

If the judges watch on a screen, should they be allowed replays?

Any sport with judges will.always be controversial.

Look at diving, gymnastics, freestyle skiing and dressage. The big names always get higher scores based on their reputation..

It's a subjective process.

The only way to stop it is to not have decisions and they go until one bloke is stopped or quits. We don't want that and it is never going to happen


We might just have to accept that they get some wrong, in our opinion. They get most right to be fair.

Open scoring has it's faults but I think it's the best option at this point. After every 3 rounds the scorecards are announced.

Other- judges given punch statistics at the end of each round

My T Sharp wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 13:56 Other- judges given punch statistics at the end of each round

Good idea, but note that Compubox (for example) are still using the same basic manual method they always have, and they're not always entirely accurate (though they can at least deliver numbers immediately). I wonder if AI has a part to play.

All good ideas in the poll with the exception of ear muffs

I'd let the public judge using an app.

We can’t pretend these decisions are by chance. And a new system will never be Okd. Too much money

Honest judges?

By accepting the fact that refereeing and judging are two very different jobs and being good at one does not necessarily make you good at the other. So they should be separate licences.

And plenty of training and review - I don't know how much training A* refs get these days, but if I was one, I would want it to be regular.

No point having five judges, or pushing buttons, or changing the scoring system - any system would only ever be as good as the people using it. Look at the LA Olympics in 84 - a 5-person back-up judging panel which ruled on any decision where the first panel had come out 3-2. That didn't make the decisions any better.

I was listening to George Groves the other day and he doesn't think they should change anything in terms with how it's set up, keep it as three judges at ringside. I'm not really sure what they can do other than get more judges, rotate them more and maybe make them accountable but it won't stop controversial decisions.

It doesn't exist, but a system like hawk-eye that's used in tennis/football. IF it could be adapted to be able to track boxing gloves (speed & force) and the human body, and the system can plot exactly if and how many punches land at a certain force.
The complexity and cost of that would realistically only ever be able to be used for the very highest level championship fights though and is too unrealistic.

However, technology and accountability would be better than the current way.
It won't stop bias, and poor judging....but it might just make the judges have to think a bit more about what they put into their scorecard than a simple 10-9. This in itself isn't a great method since a one sided beatdown without a knockdown is scored 10-9, and a very cagey close round is also scored the same 10-9.

I'm pretty passionate about this topic as the developer over the past 4/5 years of a scoring system which simply expands on the current scoring system. Would require the use of tablet by each judge ringside.

I won't make a long post, instead here's a blog post I wrote back in 2021 following one of the scoring controversies that happened (can't remember specifically which one it was).

But if you're interested have a read, and also use our scoring system when you're scoring bouts:
A call for an improved, implementable boxing scoring system
https://fight-score.com/blog/a-call-for ... ing-system

Fightnight Scores wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 04:30
but it might just make the judges have to think a bit more about what they put into their scorecard than a simple 10-9. This in itself isn't a great method since a one sided beatdown without a knockdown is scored 10-9, and a very cagey close round is also scored the same 10-9.

What if they just expanded on these instances and where one fighter has clearly won a round in a one sided manner, the judges give them an extra 1/2 point? But it needs to be a clearly one sided round.

Controversial wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 12:02

Fightnight Scores wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 04:30
but it might just make the judges have to think a bit more about what they put into their scorecard than a simple 10-9. This in itself isn't a great method since a one sided beatdown without a knockdown is scored 10-9, and a very cagey close round is also scored the same 10-9.

What if they just expanded on these instances and where one fighter has clearly won a round in a one sided manner, the judges give them an extra 1/2 point? But it needs to be a clearly one sided round.

They have spoke about that on the Boxing News podcast. I think that would be better than the current system.
Or if they keep whole numbers then 10-9 for a close round 10-8 for a wider round...and then knock off more points for knockdowns etc. Makes more sense to differentiate those wider margin rounds.

Fightnight Scores wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 15:39

Controversial wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 12:02

Fightnight Scores wrote: ↑10 Mar 2022, 04:30
but it might just make the judges have to think a bit more about what they put into their scorecard than a simple 10-9. This in itself isn't a great method since a one sided beatdown without a knockdown is scored 10-9, and a very cagey close round is also scored the same 10-9.

What if they just expanded on these instances and where one fighter has clearly won a round in a one sided manner, the judges give them an extra 1/2 point? But it needs to be a clearly one sided round.

They have spoke about that on the Boxing News podcast. I think that would be better than the current system.
Or if they keep whole numbers then 10-9 for a close round 10-8 for a wider round...and then knock off more points for knockdowns etc. Makes more sense to differentiate those wider margin rounds.

Yes either one would be better, not sure they would change it though but it would make it fairer as you are actually getting rewarded for dominating a round instead of getting the same points for edging a round.

Obviously changing how the points are allocated will help so that one fighter who barely wins 6 rounds then loses 6 rounds widely doesn't get a draw. 100 points to the winner of the round would be better than 10 so you could score anything between 80 and 99 for the loser where there are no knockdowns.

Knowing they would be held accountable should improve the judges performance. You'd just need 3 small cameras and mics recording the judges point of view and in the next 48 hours the judge would have to sit and watch the footage and commentate/justify his scorecard. These could be uploaded to Youtube. This should be part of the job and i reckon would focus the mind. If it was done every time and not just when judges submitted controversial cards they wouldn't feel persecuted and it would actually be educational to let fans understand how good judges score fights.

I'm sure i heard about a score system that was being trialled years ago.
Basically throughout the round the judge had to hold down one button or another when one boxer was winning those moments of a round or not touch them if neither was in control. Something like that could be adapted with a way to differentiate between single light jabs/single powershots or light flurries/heavy combos.

Shirow wrote: ↑12 Mar 2022, 05:53 Obviously changing how the points are allocated will help so that one fighter who barely wins 6 rounds then loses 6 rounds widely doesn't get a draw. 100 points to the winner of the round would be better than 10 so you could score anything between 80 and 99 for the loser where there are no knockdowns.

Knowing they would be held accountable should improve the judges performance. You'd just need 3 small cameras and mics recording the judges point of view and in the next 48 hours the judge would have to sit and watch the footage and commentate/justify his scorecard. These could be uploaded to Youtube. This should be part of the job and i reckon would focus the mind. If it was done every time and not just when judges submitted controversial cards they wouldn't feel persecuted and it would actually be educational to let fans understand how good judges score fights.

I'm sure i heard about a score system that was being trialled years ago.
Basically throughout the round the judge had to hold down one button or another when one boxer was winning those moments of a round or not touch them if neither was in control. Something like that could be adapted with a way to differentiate between single light jabs/single powershots or light flurries/heavy combos.

I'm not sure scores between 80 and 100 would help to be honest, if anything that makes it more likely to be controversial as one huge winning round could skew the entire scorecard. Also I'm a bit wary to rely on buttons to score a fight, that just seems to be another distraction for the judge and can be pressed in error. I don't think it needs huge adjustments, new faces, more accountability and maybe an extra point for winning a round wide.

Coco wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 17:26Honest judges?

I’d like to see more 10-10s and more 10-8s.

Not saying throw them around like confetti, but it would be a big help.
A lot of fights are 6-0 at halfway when almost nothing has happened. Frampton vs Quigg was like that. About half of all round ones are dull and neither deserves a lead.

skanksta wrote: ↑12 Mar 2022, 06:15 I’d like to see more 10-10s and more 10-8s.

Not saying throw them around like confetti, but it would be a big help.
A lot of fights are 6-0 at halfway when almost nothing has happened. Frampton vs Quigg was like that. About half of all round ones are dull and neither deserves a lead.

Yes you don't see many drawn rounds, I think many feel like they should pick a winner, that's where bias can come into play.