Boxing has a real problem on its hands...

I feel like the way bouts are scored in general needs to be reworked. Why is clean punching only worth 25%? If defense is worth 25%, does any judge actually score for defense? And it seems to me ring generalship has become a way of asserting an agenda into live broadcasts rather than anything meaningful.

Effective aggression apparently is worth 25%. Why, though? What about guys like Marquez who fight effectively without aggression?

If it were up to me, scoring would be 75% clean punching and 25% defense because that's what boxing ultimately boils down to. I hate hearing **** like Pacquiao won more rounds in the 3rd Marquez fight because he was aggressive and pushing the fight.

 

Funny really i am a freelance VT and have done work for various Sky and Setanta fights and the judges have screens in front of them like myself? I guess this does not happen always, but i think it should as they see everything then.:good

 

Dude this is typical of most crap in Western society today banking, politics, business, etc...

There are probably tons of checks, remedies, and procedures to fix this already in the books. Problem is the system itself is full of so many corrupt interests and "beneficial friendships" that NOBODY takes any action to suspend crap judges. Can't suspend him he is a "friend" of so and so. Well if you didn't suspend him then you can't suspend him. It all becomes a system of balancing corruption in a way that HOPEFULLY the "right" guys wins. You can see this is bigger than just judging as it goes all the way up to the level of the analysts. 5 punch combination by the "wrong guy"? Silence. One counter? "Oh he lands a right!"

The corruption is now the norm. Boxing always has been known as a dirty business though so who is to say it hasn't always been like this and we just now have enough information/savy to see it.

 

I was thinking this same thing the other day. As big a part as the judges have in the out come of a fight, not alot of attention is paid to them. All we hear is their names announced before the fight, and a couple of fights they have judged before, but how often do you recognize the names or have seen them before or heard them speak? For all we know they can be some old senile fart that can't even recognize the person sitting next to him, let alone judge a fight. They should have mandatory post fight interviews with the judges, were each one explains how they got their score and what things they were taking into account. After a while you would recognize the good honest judges and the shitty incompetent ones. Just like with the referees, you have your Bayless's and then your Cortez's and you know what to expect with them. I think that with a bigger public eye on them, they will think about their reputation before making those biased calls.

 

:yep:good

 

you guys are idiots

 

What you 'tards don't seem to understand is that most of these judges, abc officials, commissioners etc all have personal relationships, and have no desire whatsoever to change a single aspect of how the sport operates. Their ship sails just fine, and they're all in bed together (sometimes literally), they earn well, and don't give a damn about any "incompetent" judging or officiating upsetting a bunch of anoraks on some irrelevant internet forum.

So stfu.

 

YEAH! That's the kind of attitude we need to clean up the sport!

 

With all the travesty decisions and bogus reffing that has happened in the last two years, THIS is the fight that the OP thinks constitutes a problem for boxing?

Words fail me.

 

Boxing should be judged on clean punching first an foremost. Doesn't matter if one guy throws a billion punches and doesn't land and one guy throws one punch an it lands. You give it to the guy who landed the ping. Next it's effective aggression. Key word EFFECTIVE. Coming forward and missing like PAC was against Marquez isn't effective. Third ring generalship. People confuse his with bein aggressive. That's not what it means. Pernell Whitaker and Floyd mayweather are excellent ring generals because thy control the pace of the fight and can get to why spot on the canvas they want. Lastly defense. Yep if all things are even you give the round to the guy with the best defense.


Honestly I've never gone wrong scoring with this criteria. And I think judges won't be all over the place if they scores in this manner

 

Here's all you have to do:

Put small sensors & accelerometers in the fighters' gloves. With today's technology this is actually feasible. (the accelerometers could be near the wrists.)

Then just record the actual hits, and the power that they have. You'd even know when a punch was blocked since a "hit" would register in the opponent's gloves. Work out some computer-scoring program and be done with it.

Then you just need a ref, to call fouls & break up clinches.

But of course this would never happen, since the last thing the promoters & networks want is a fair fight.

 

Yeah, and the judges should be naked, chained to the wall, with electrodes attached to their balls.

All the fans would then vote by computer on whether or not they think each judge is telling the truth, & the result if negative would send a current through the electrodes. The more negative the viewer responses, the higher the current!

I suggest we start with Russell Mora. :yep

 

That fight still pisses me off. Any news on a possible rematch or anything or is Lara still gettin the shaft?

 

As an earlier poster stated, all scoring is inherently subjective. Each judge have their own biases and preferences. So it really is impractical to tell how judges they should score when your individual criteria is different and "subjective" as well. Lest you be a pretentious douche, who's to say "your" way of scoring is the right way to score? I mean lets look at something like "ring generalship", how the hell exactly do you measure that? This is a rhetorical question and don't bother answering....you have an opinion and you're entitled to it but it don't mean it's better than Harold Lederman's criteria which btw favors activity. My point is that it's useless to denigrate how a judge scores a fight because ultimately we have no influence over how he sees the fight. What we may have influence though is who should judge a fight. The one criticism that imo is valid is that judges may be corrupt or influenced to judge a "certain" way by the promoters. One way to assure fairness then is for each camp to choose a judge and the sanctioning commission to choose one too...for a total of three. In that way, no one agenda trumps over the other and this issue of corruption would hold less weight.