How to improve judging...

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by mcguirpa, Sep 25, 2009.


Page 1 of 2
  1. mcguirpa

    mcguirpa Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,957
    106
    Feb 15, 2009
    I had a crazy idea.... but i think it would work.

    Why do we only have 3 judges? One judge can make or break a fight. I think we should have 12, 3 each side of the ring.

    And a simplified scoring system. All the judges should do is determine who won a round. 1 point to the winner. The judges scores would be submitted at the end, and the points would be added on for knockdowns etc seperately.

    To win a fight you'd have to get the nod from at least 7 judges.

    Juries have 12 men, why does boxing, with millions of dollars at stake only have 3 and an opaque, arcane scoring system?
     
    mcguirpa, Sep 25, 2009
    mcguirpa, Sep 25, 2009
    #1
  2. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    Cost!

    Fighters get screwed out of enough money without paying for at least nine more officials.
     
    TBooze, Sep 25, 2009
    TBooze, Sep 25, 2009
    #2
  3. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    38
    Jan 7, 2005
    You reckon Fat Mick would pay for 12 judges in a Bantamweight 4 threes?


    ;O)
     
    GazOC, Sep 25, 2009
    GazOC, Sep 25, 2009
    #3
  4. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    38
    Jan 7, 2005
    Beat me to it!!:lol:
     
    GazOC, Sep 25, 2009
    GazOC, Sep 25, 2009
    #4
  5. mcguirpa

    mcguirpa Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,957
    106
    Feb 15, 2009
    It would just scale with the importance of the fight.

    World titles would be 12 judges, which would probably go a long way to ending WBU style alphabet bull****. If a fighter is spending hundreds of thousands in sanctioning fees a few extra quid on judges won't be missed.

    English title would be 3, British probably 7, European 9 and world 12.

    The amount of shonky decisions would decrease dramitacally.

    I'm convinced this is the way forward.

    Why is 3 the standard? If it's solely due to cost then it's wrong. A fight with a multi million $ purse should be able to afford 12 judges.
     
    mcguirpa, Sep 25, 2009
    mcguirpa, Sep 25, 2009
    #5
  6. TFFP

    TFFP The Eskimo

    45,002
    3
    Nov 28, 2007
    You are forgetting some of them take home large bonuses for their corruption.
     
    TFFP, Sep 25, 2009
    TFFP, Sep 25, 2009
    #6
  7. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    38
    Jan 7, 2005

    :nut:patsch:nono:tired

    ;)
     
    GazOC, Sep 25, 2009
    GazOC, Sep 25, 2009
    #7
  8. mcguirpa

    mcguirpa Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,957
    106
    Feb 15, 2009
    2 judges is easy to buy. 7, a little more expensive.
     
    mcguirpa, Sep 25, 2009
    mcguirpa, Sep 25, 2009
    #8
  9. Phil Austin

    Phil Austin Keep on Kronkin on! Full Member

    3,118
    0
    Jul 31, 2008
    Gotta love the logistics of this! So where are you gunna sit 12 judges with enough space in between them? I would love to know where these large bonuses come from, I certainly haven't seen any! The only attempts I have ever known to reach out to judges have been reported back to the supervisor by officials and all of this is anectdotal stuff.
    I happen to think that you guys are lucky in that the Uk has the best system in the world for judges and refs to come through. The only way to stamp out poor judging is accountability for those that perform poorly and consistently. The human element means that occasional mistakes will be made although they should be highly rare and if there is a pattern then that official needs to be dealt with as there is no place for it within our sport.
    I cannot for the life of me see how any extra officials assigned would work - for a start with multiple cards it means that the quality of officials will suffer and the chances of poor decisions will increase. The star class system you guys have is brilliant IMO and I have worked with enough UK officials to know that it works, the only suggestion I would make is can the sole-scoring ref: he is busy enough as it is
     
    Phil Austin, Sep 25, 2009
    Phil Austin, Sep 25, 2009
    #9
  10. Farmboxer

    Farmboxer VIP Member Full Member

    86,106
    4,096
    Jul 19, 2004
    We have the best judges money can buy!
     
    Farmboxer, Sep 26, 2009
    Farmboxer, Sep 26, 2009
    #10
  11. achillesthegreat

    achillesthegreat FORTUNE FAVOURS THE BRAVE Full Member

    37,070
    29
    Jul 21, 2004
    This idea is ridiculous. Again, this thread needs deleting before anyone sees it.
     
    achillesthegreat, Sep 26, 2009
    achillesthegreat, Sep 26, 2009
    #11
  12. mcguirpa

    mcguirpa Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,957
    106
    Feb 15, 2009
    Ridiculous why?

    It's a simple principle, accepted in civilised judiciaries the world over - more people deciding means less chance of a wrong decision.

    Under the current system there are circumstances one judge can have the casting decision on a fight - this is wrong. Why is it acceptable that 1 man in a 3 man panel can decide the outcome, but there's a big hoo-haa over a single referee judging a fight.

    The 3 judge system is arcahic and still in place solely due to tradition. It's a nonsense that seems to bring the sport into disrepute at least once a month.
     
    mcguirpa, Sep 26, 2009
    mcguirpa, Sep 26, 2009
    #12
  13. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,150
    Oct 22, 2006
    Actually in Britain three judges is a new idea....

    As for your one judge decides the result theory, that still could and would happen with 12, 120, 1,200 or 1,200,000 judges!
     
    TBooze, Sep 26, 2009
    TBooze, Sep 26, 2009
    #13
  14. achillesthegreat

    achillesthegreat FORTUNE FAVOURS THE BRAVE Full Member

    37,070
    29
    Jul 21, 2004
    In the judicial system 12 people come together to try to find a common place. In boxing, each would have their own opinion and be entitled to it. They would have no argument trying to convince them of common ground. They would usually see different fights.

    It would simply see more money being spent on more judges to give us more cards.

    1 man in a 3 man panel doesn't decide the outcome. How do you mean exactly? There are 3 cards that could create any form of decision. 1 card only makes a difference if the other 2 allow it.
     
    achillesthegreat, Sep 26, 2009
    achillesthegreat, Sep 26, 2009
    #14
  15. Phil Austin

    Phil Austin Keep on Kronkin on! Full Member

    3,118
    0
    Jul 31, 2008
    Because there is a massive difference between the two! The reason not many people (and the fact that it is no longer used anywhere else in the world) like a sole scoring referee is that the ref has his hands full controlling the fight and looking after the fighters, in a real full-on barney mistakes can and do happen. Let's face it I have seen some in fights that should have been relatively straight forward! Tbooze is right as well, no matter how many you employ the situation can still occur
     
    Phil Austin, Sep 26, 2009
    Phil Austin, Sep 26, 2009
    #15
Page 1 of 2