Basically, there should only be judges in their 20's 30's and maybe say 40's. That it. No judges 50+ in age and definitely not 60+ There's a reason. Boxing is an extremely quick sport. You have to be a very quick processor of visual data to see that a punch did not land. You also have to be very focused upon the fight and at the end of a round break down what you saw and make a decision before the next bell. There's a problem: Old people cannot process as quickly as the youth in most cases! Not to say all youth would be good, but there are a select few who would be much more superior in judging. Case in point: I truly believe that in most fights what the majority scores the fight is usually correct. That is because despite how quick the fighters can be usually you can just ascertain that someone is taking over the fight. However, there are select fighters and fights that due to how quick things were taking place the majority was actually incorrect. I know boxing is corrupt and this will never happen to make sure guys like Canelo stay on top, but its a great idea if it can at least be employed in some levels.
Dude, Hopkins fought professionally at 50. Judges should have their eyesight checked whatnot. Does anyone even know if they do that somewhere?
No stfu They should be allowed to do it at any age so I can have a long and prosperous career screwing over bellends I don't like
I'd trust a judge in his 50s more than a 20 year old, you're pretty much still mentally a child in your 20s.. But you don't realise that until many years later.
Also, title fights should have 15 judges. 3 on each side of the ring, and another 3 watching closed circuit tv. That way every perspective is covered, and enough data is collected so that an outlier (or crooked judge) can't have such a ridiculous effect on the outcome.
I saw a recent poll where 26% of millenials think more people were killed under the George W Bush presidency than were killed by Joseph Stalin in Russia.......the answer to your question is hell no.
