How can boxing decisions be improved?

As suggested, it is fruitless discussion because the only people who want change are us really.

But open scoring would help.

Announce it after every round.

I'm not saying that's the resolution, because it opens up other cans of worms, but it would help sort the **** scoring.

 

I don't like open scoring at all. Judges can get swayed by getting booed or cheered each round, boxers can get demotivated if things arn't going their way, boxers who know they are in a lead can start running, clinching just muddle though the fight.

 

What about like the end of ready steady cook where the audience hold up cards and then get in ainsley harriet to be the mc

''Its a reeeeeeeeeed tomato''

 

im pretty sure some places they do, I have seen the ref going to them between round and collecting the scores which are then handed to another official i think

 

:rofl:rofl

 

Stop rewarding fighters just for thriving punches, only for landing them. Define ring generalship as controlling the fight, not simply back-pedalling. Force judges to explain their scores.

 

Force judges to explain scores = don king/bob arum/voldemort told me to

 

More open scoring is an attractive idea, but you;re barking up the wrong tree. We need a way to make the scoring LESS open.

Think about it, at the end of every fight the judges scores are read out next to their name, the likes of Don King know straight away if their man has done his work. The solution is this;

12 judges for the biggest fights (3 on each side of the ring). The scores are entered by computer, anonymously, at the end of each round.

At the end of the contest each judges scores for each fighter are ranked in order and the best and worst score for each fighter removed. the fight is judged on the average of the remaining scores.

This achieves a number of things:

1. Scoring is anonymous. What's the point of trying to buy a judge when you can't know if he has delivered or not?

2. A shady judge can't give an outrageously lopsided score, because he risks having it discounted

3. There's no point in a shady judge giving a close decision to the man who bought him because he risks just been drowned out in the averaging with 9 other judges

4. All the angles are covered by judges sitting all the way around the ring

5. The power of each individual judge is diminished by the number of judges

6. It's harder to buy 6 judges than it is 2.

7. More judges means a greater probability of getting to the right answer

There's more advantages that I can't be arsed writing down, but if you want to make judging fairer, at least at the top then this would be the way to do it.

 

No, it's just more expensive.

Not a bad sounding system to be fair, but how could any of this get put into place? It would be easier to get politicians to come up with a system to get rid of corruption in politics.

 

I would argue it's both more expensive AND harder, for a variety of reasons.

Also, don't get me wrong, I think there's more chance of hell freezing over than there is of something like this being implemented

 

They wouldn't need to be bribed. Just trained...

 

I think its teh tv companies that should do teh pressing as it is tehy whom ultimately have the last decision as they pay the wages to promoters/boxers/judges etc via payemnt for televised cards. IMO it is sky that should say 'listen so&so, i want all the fights clean and fair with no dubious decisions, pack your cards out and we will look after you'. Surely they can do summat like that?

 

We could do away with winners and losers in boxing altogether. It could be like the special Olympics, or politically correct school sports days where everybody gets to be a winner.

Its not about the winning and losing, it's about the taking part. Everybody knows that.

 

The Status Quo works. Lara has got more print and more fans losing an alleged robbery, than he ever would of got, if he got the nod. This will probably be reflected in his next pay day...

Why change things? Everyone is a winner!!!

 

You can never really improve it. Its all subjective.