Holding Judges Accountable

look up the Wigscore (c) method

It uses the same setup as now but automatically marginalises the outlier judge each round. Its as close to infallible as you can get.

 

I see what you mean but it would rob us of all the suspense when reading the score card. VAR is ruining football we don’t need this type of thing in boxing too. What about when there’s a very close fight and you get an amazing last round where they’re both going for it in their own way because they don’t know who is winning.

I believe this would take away a lot from the sport. There has to be other ways of holding people accountable.

 

The WBC trialled this a few years ago but it wasn’t popular. Can’t remember when, but they disclosed the scoring every 4 rounds

 

I think we should abolish scoring, no winners or losers - just pat on the back and money in the bank. Then a fan voting a system for who fights next.

 

Im pretty sure when Martin Murray fought Golovkin in Monaco they were reading the scores out every 3 rounds or something like that.

 

Open scoring was used as far back as the 80s (possibly even earlier). It was doomed to failure after the Marlon Starling - Johnny Bumphus fight, where Lou Duva made a meal of an accidental cut to get the fight stopped, knowing that Bumphus was ahead if it went to a technical decision.

The WBC brought it in, but allowed any commission freedom not to use it.

The problem with open scoring is that it creates additional issues, without actually addressing the underlying one. Poor judges and judging will still happen regardless of whether the scores are publicly announced. The focus should be on better judges and more accountability, rather than gimmicks.

 

Only the lower class is held accountable in the UK
Every one else is more or less a law unto them selves
It ain't going to happen
Just look at aiba
They was even prepared to lose Olympic status in order to keep corruption rolling

 

Open scoring has about as much positives as it has negatives.
The whole thing that has to be adressed is the abysmal scoring, because if that huge issue is out of the way a boxer knows when he's probably up, down or about level on the scorecards just due to simple math. He knows if he has to take risks or doesn't.
Sadly scoring is so all over the place, certainly when fighting a house fighter, that you never know if you're actually in front when nyou're winning the fight.

 

Oh yes I remember that now. It didn't last long did it. Why did they say they were abandoning the idea?
Edit...just seen momus post.

 

The real and only problem is the blatant scoring to fighters who don't deserve it.
Afaik this comes from 2 directions.
(A,) straight up cheating, the proverbial brown envelope scoring.
(B) a judge may be drawn to one of the fighters in the bout. He may be from the same city/county/country.
He might be really good friends with the fighters trainer and he's (judge) kept an eye on the fighter because of the ties, as the fighter came through. There's quite a few reasons for an subconscious gravitation towards a fighter.
We all know that this can happen to ourselves as we watch a fight. If you don't watch it you can sometimes ((unintentionally) enjoy what your fighter is doing whilst disregarding some of the good work the opp is doing. Sometimes were not quite as objective as we should be.
Like ourselves, the judges are human and open to favouring someone over the other one.
We know that this shouldn't happen as it's unprofessional but like I said, the judges are human too and they also have human frailties.
Because for the most part scoring is subjective, just because you feel a certain fighter should of won that doesn't mean everyone prefers that style of fighting and that they should score it in the same manner as yourself.
Above are the two ways that seem to have an effect on a judge scoring a fight.
The way they are scored and the system for scoring I.e 10point must based on punches landed, effective aggression, ring generalship, defence is a sound system imo.
The only way to clean up the judges scoring is to hold them more unaccountable but how do you do that?
You could say that their way of scoring should be more scrutinised and that each scorecard should be explained as to how that judge came to that decision of awarding the round to the said fighter.
What happens then is each judge starts getting known for exactly how they're going to score a fight which in turn causes more problems.
I'm sure the governing bodies keep an eye on judges scoring and any score adds that are" blatantly obvious" then that judge
Is called in to give a full account of himself.

 

As far as I'm aware the WBC are still using open scoring as an option.

https://www.*******.com/wbc-open-scoring-system-makes-an-impact--76549

"
WBC Open Scoring System Makes an Impact

by Ronnie Nathanielsz

The pioneering open scoring system launched by the World Boxing Council has clearly made a positive impact after it was successfully used during two world title fights in Japan where Naoya Inoue and Akira Yaegashi scored significant knockout victories.

Yaegashi defended his WBC flyweight title against Mexican Odilon Zaleta while Naoya Inoue become light flyweight champion by stopping Adrian Hernandez.

The WBC in its website said it is “grateful to the Japan Boxing Commission for supporting this innovative system that represents a significant advancement in the sport. It provides extra motivation allowing the fighter to know scores of judges at the end of rounds 4 and 8.”

The WBC reported that the open scoring rule has been used in thousands of fights and has proven to be a rule that makes boxing more fair and straightforward.

In fact the prestigious Japan Boxing Commission which is regarded as one of the best in the world has also adopted open scoring in national title bouts, giving scores at the end of round five."


As the linked article states, open scoring has apparently been a tremendous success, as evidenced by its use in Inoue's defence against Adrian Hernandez. Without open scoring it may not have been clear that Inoue was winning every round and beating the ever loving **** out of Hernandez. Who knows how the fight may have turned out otherwise and what controversy would have ensued?

I suppose if you're going to pick a fighter to spearhead the open scoring revolution, the most lethal pound for pound puncher in the sport is the right guy for the job.

 

There's no magic bullet, but a good place to start would be the governing bodies giving a ****. Alejandro Rochin's inexplicable card for Fury-Wilder was immediately excused by his boss (who happens to be his countryman), and he's continued to be given work without any obvious fallout.

In most walks of life, there's accountability for what workers do. If you're rubbish at your job, there are normally consequences for that. Basic performance management where good is rewarded and bad penalised would be a step forward for boxing.