My solution for crooked/bad judging

You're forgetting that all parties involved from the alphabets to the promoters to the venues to the judges to the fighters are about making that sweet moolah.

 

Go back to sleep, when NSAC tells the world that doing illegal IV 14x over the limit at home is perfectly fine then you have no case.

 

I heard most of theses orgs are hiding WMD


That should sort it out

Now america and UK go do your thing

 

I think that's an excellent idea.

Best practical/easy solution I've seen so far, I just think for practical reasons it has to be limited, e.g. 1 or 2 vetos per team.

It might not have changed Canelo-GGG, in fact K2 probably would've been tempted to veto Moretti if anyone, but in principle it's an excellent idea.

 

Would it make enemies of the vetoed judges?

I still like my idea of all fights being judged by three priests, three rabbis and three imams.....

 

Possibly, but it doesn't matter as you can always keep vetoing the same judge in the future.

In fact, it would be possible to veto a judge on stylistic grounds w/o making enemies, e.g. Judge Joe Bloggs tends to prefer come-forward fighters, which is why we veto him.

At the moment a protest is more likely to make enemies because it's so rare.

 

I disturbingly agree that the title orgs are our most realistic defence against promoters and commissions aiding and abetting obviously wrong cards. The WBA strongly stated the fight last week was "marred by an incorrect scorecard". That's more than Oscar or the NSAC said, who insisted Byrd is a good judge even when they said she'll be given a break. A title org could take a stand and keep a hit list of judges with unacceptable scores, and refuse to sanction a fight for their title if a judge on the hit list was assigned. They do have the power to approve assigned judges, they should wield that power more. And the WBC has initiated a lot of rules changes that were later accepted by commissions across the board.

You have to worry however whether the title org would be willing to put a judge on their hit list if the score was against their champion. Obviously they want the game to go on, and to work with champions and promoters who they can easily get their pound of flesh from.

 

Yes, ideally the title orgs should be enforcing fairness.

But I think @Robney's proposal presents an additional safeguard to that, all the title orgs have major problems.

 

I misread the original post, but I still don't really understand it. The boxers competing for a title would have the right to veto judges? They already have that, with the promoter representing the fighter having the sway to refuse judges. And giving the actual competitor that sort of power, no I don't agree.

 

At the moment it's very difficult for a promoter to refuse a judge, it can develop into a long battle as the commission chooses the judges. The protest can be denied.

The proposal is that each fighter's team has the right to veto one judge.

 

He isnt forgetting it at all - read his post again.