How's this for new scoring,eEliminate judges...

I think it should be 5 judges, one of which could be the "experts" at ring side or online. or that 5th judge could be in an isolated room with a muted feed of the fight

 

i think they should show or announce the scores after every round or every other 3rnds, so fighters could know if they're leading or behind...if others sports been doing these, why cant boxing and mma do the same thing...

 

Again, one can get around this by increasing the number of judges themselves, not relying on the press or the audience. Likewise, one can randomly assign judges to fights on the day of the event. The biggest boxing magazine in the country is owned by a promoter, as are sites like maxboxing. Giving members of press row any real decison-making authority is just as fraught with problems of corruption as the status quo.

I'll read a Rafael or a Kim for info about the industry or promoter baseball. But I don't think they know any more than most fans when it comes to scoring a fight (and often far less in comparison to many on this forum), which again leaves me wondering why if increasing the sample size is such a concern you don't go all the way and empower everyone watching it live.

 

As long as people keep buying, corruption will continue. With no single, centralised organising body to tackle the matter then people need to hit the culprits, who are promoters and the numerous sanctioning bodies, where it hurts - in the pocket.

Personally I think boxing is to far gone for anything to change, which is sad, and if want to watch the sport then you just have accept that these things will happen, which is even sadder but a fact of life I'm afraid. But as I said, if you feel that strongly about it, then don't watch.

 

How about if they made judging a fight like Jury duty.
Sequester the ****s...

Have a bunch of lil reffs in a room pick 'em at random & seal the envelope.
Hand on the bible all that honor bull**** from court.
(Throw 'em in the slam if they are caught with anything)

 

How about this for posting!

You go away.

 

On your first recommendation, how can a fighter win a round only for punches landed. To me, the one who does the most damage should win the round regardless of punches landed. On your second recommendation, popular fighters will always win.

My recommendation is this, keep the judges, but start a comission or a league. That way, you can hold people accountable (suspend, train, etc.).

 

This is a delightfully meritocratic vision of the way boxing (and the world in general) works but one that I reject. Beyond that, the boxing knowledge most valued in a journalistic context is not the ability to score a fight, but the ability to report on industry-related happenings and breaking news. There is no reason to believe those two things go hand in hand and no reason to view journalists as any more versed in the nuances of fight-scoring than anyone else.

 

Exactly.

The OP has suggested this because of a list showing that most ring side journalists had Pacquaio losing the fight.

He neglects to mention that ring side journalists also had Marquez beating Pacquaio, and as a reult, the Bradley fight should never have taken place.

 

Just have open scoring.

 

I'll admit I'm not a fan of open scoring... It ruins the suspense.
(Yes, I know it sounds assbackwards but...)

It all comes down to credibility & sadly when money is involved nobody can be trusted.

 

I think there is something to what the TS thinks but I would not solely leave it in the hands of the media.