I was looking at Barrera's 2 fights against Pacquiao (second fight) and JMM, and I noticed that 2 judges had scored the fights roughly the same but another judge hugely deviates from that scoring. Then it occured to me that this happens all the time with scoring - even in fights where the scores should be clear cut. Why is this?
MAybe because having 3 identical scorecard's way too obvious? You only need to have 2 of them in your pockets to win the fight, anyway.
its them very very close 10-9 rounds that could be counted as 10-10's if there are 2 rounds there 1 judge gives it to B 10-9 and the other 2 give it to A 10-9 you got a 4 point swing between the cards. 1 judge may like coming forward and being agressive more than clean and effective punching.
The three judges are on separate sides of the ring, maybe one is just in a position where he can or cant see things the other two can...?
I agree that this does happen a lot. Holyfield-Lewis I is a great example. I think those who select judges purposefully try and select people they know have different viewpoints on scoring to ensure a fair mix, ie when 3 judges are chosen they will not choose 3 people who are known to prize workrate and aggression very highly, nor will they choose 3 people who are known to value clean shots only rather than workrate and give points for good defensive work as opposed to only scoring thwarted attacks. I guess the people who choose judges would know each judge's particular taste by their past scorecards for certain fights. For example, it would be unfair to put 3 judges known to favour workrate and aggression on for say a Floyd Mayweather v Antonio Margarito fight. This may be complete and utter bollocks though, it's just an idea I had a while back to explain the strangely divergent scores given by judges.