With only 3 judges and due to the subjectivity of fights a small swing away from the actual result can result in a wrong decision. Well why don't we increase the number of judges to say 30 for major fights incrementally down to say 7 for the smaller fights? The swings would then have little effect and we would get a much truer reflection of the fight. I think we keep the current way to score a fight and at the end we ask each of the 30 (or so) for their winner (or draw), add them up and there you go, the most common winner is the winner of the fight. We could have boundaries like if its 13-17 or 14-16 its a draw or 10-20 to 12-18 its SD etc. ALso the judges can watch the fight on monitors with sound canceling headphones so they can't hear the crowd. This gives them a better view and eliminates that hometown crowd (+2 rounds!) scoring. People tell me the issues with this?
Im leaning towards incompetence rather than corruption and yes, more judges, would lessen the chance of these perverse decisions. However watching Bob arum after the fight it makes one think 'the lady doth protest too much'