Looking at Trout v. Canelo, Williams v. Martinez I, Canelo v. Floyd, Kirkland v. Molina, Pac v. Bradley I, Lara v. Williams, among others. It seems those fights only had two legitimate judges. The judging profession has to be more scrutinized. When a judge is WAY off, they should be suspended 18 months and seek counseling of an established judge. If done twice, they should be done from competitive judging for good. It matters too much to a guy's career to have someone incompetent judging their work.
It's a real problem, which I why I've always said there should be more judges. 5 would work. Especially for big fights where there is so much money in play, and at stake. It's a very significant, but simple way to at least mitigate the impact one really bad scorecard can have. Even 2. It's simple math really. There are other ways I'd address boxing's problem of judging fights, bu this is the simplest and easiest way to make an impact. Or public flogging. That works too.
I think you are right about this. I've always thought they've stuck with 3 because the powerful promoters want to make sure their potential cash cows aren't ruined and it's a lot easier to count on two people ruling a certain way. I often think in close rounds the judges give the round to the promoter who picked up the tab for the organizing of the fight. But I think the larger the sample the better the results. I often wonder if CJ Ross gave Canelo a draw because they want people who look at boxrec years later saying "OH wow, he came close to beating floyd eh?!.. Must be a good fighter."
It's always possible. That's the problem. It's hard to distinguish between the generally just poor, but honest judging, the screwheads with an agenda, the homerism, and the flat out bold faced corruption. It sucks we have to discuss it here, when there are simple and obvious fixes, if they want them.
