5 judges is where it's at. Maybe reshape the 10 point system. It's ridiculous just how often a KD causes a 3 point swing. But most of all, fix the judges. Make sure they are properly schooled and test them to see their adequacy as a judge.
One independent body would help not unlike how they set about cricket with neutral umpires and life bans for those caught fixing matches,helped the sport no end. One other massive change in cricket was the right to appeal decisions with a respected third umpire removed from the game in his own room with cameras,it’s taken the animosity out of the game as 99% of it was to do with bad decisions or human error. I realise boxing is a different sport but I’m sure the boxers themselves just want fair decisions so re last night I’m not sure there would of been grounds for a change of decision but that first fight was agreed by a big consensus that it was wrong and could of been cleared up within half hour I believe. Surely though common sense would dictate that judges are dealt with by a highly respected individual or individuals and that they are not named before the fight negating any suspicion of foul play. Let’s not single out Canelo either as my opinion of that other famous A side boxer AJ went down after seeing the antics in that Parker fight.......all A side stuff is a cancer to the sport,can’t tell you how impressed I was when Spence fought Brook in the U.K.,would love to see Canelo win outside of Vegas.
There’s another scenario that was mentioned re Byrd in that her card was so bad it was actually too ridiculous to be corrupt and that it’s quite possible she wanted to impress one of the biggest promoters in the sport and get any future jobs and in that she failed as Oscar had a lot of questions to answer. How much do they get paid and is it enough?
Negative! Terrible idea! 50 judges? LOL the cost of judges would be more than the purse. SMH. Here's the best way. 9 judges in sound proof rooms with cameras on all 4 sides of the ring. They can hit a button that cuts a 10 second time period out to review if there is a question about a foul, a flurry or something like that. During the fight a representitive from both sides will monitor the judges quarters. After the fight a rep from the commission will have the 9 judges place their score cards in the box in front of the reps from the fighters. At that point, the rep from the commission and the fighters will carry the box to the ring, were the announcer will randomly pull 3 cards out and read the results.
Well I think 3 judges is kind of a tradition that will be hard to break through, but I get your point and I agree, the more people scoring, it'd be harder to coordinate a bribery and with a bigger "sample size" you remove some of the subjectivity. It'd be a welcome change in my eyes but yeah, I don't think it's totally feasible but perhaps 50 is overkill, they could start with 20 or something.
I do think for world title fights, 1 judge per side of the ring and 1 TV judge, would make sense. Makes a bogus card much less influencial, and at the top level, an extra 2 judges are not going to affect things too much.
Sorry but I think that's a stupid idea. As I said, fights would be getting decided on popularity. You think a home town crowd is gonna vote for their own fighter to lose in a close fight? And that's on the assumption that everybody in the crowd knows how to score a fight properly. Which is unlikely.
3 judges per round, sat in a booth somewhere. So that totals 36 judges. After a round the 3 judges allocated to that round have 10 minutes to rewatch it in slow motion from various angles. Sure, they’d be a 10 minute delay at the end of the fight, but I guarantee you’ll see better scorecards.
People want to see results, they haven't paid good money to attend a fight to read who won the day after.