Lisa Giampa- last night's draw Vasyl v. Russell Eugenia Williams- Lewis v. Holyfield I This content is protected 116-114 | judge: Hilton Whitaker III 115-114 | judge: Al Bennett 114-114 - The Lara v. Williams Judges Pierre Benoist- 119-110 for Willaims in Martinez v. Williams I John Stewart- 115-113 Ward v. Froch CJ Ross Canelo v. Floyd draw Bradley v. Pac I Bradley winning Harry Gibbs and Newton Campos- Whitaker v. Ramirez I. They had Ramirez winning Gale Von Hoy- Molina v. Kirkland card Feel free to add more.
I think you scrap all these guys and start from scratch. All judges have to be truly detached and independent. If any kind of link to a promotional group or fighter can be found they should be removed from consideration. You know what is interesting, if you have ever watched how fans across the US and around the world score a fight, they are pretty damned accurate. They ought to remove judges altogether and, if it can be done, have the viewing audience score fights. If you can prevent intervention and corruption, this is the way to go. But, of course, the orgs in boxing would NEVER allow control to flow away from them.
I take it you have never watched the results from the viewing audience? They are collectively RIGHT ON the mark every time. Only on rare occasions do you see any kind of deviation. It eliminates any sort of bias built in. There is always a regional bias or certain kinds of distortions but that is removed when you have a large number of viewers contributing, as you would on big fights. For example, in all likelihood there is a higher percentage of Hispanic viewers so you may feel there would be a bias toward the Hispanic fighter, and maybe there would be slightly, but that would for the most part get filtered out by large numbers.
I agree with Rauber's viewer participation idea. We all know most judges aren't on the level for whatever reason, and the scores in big fights are usually off in such a way that it's almost impossible for most viewers to actually do worse. Funny thing is that in a recent IB round by round there was some hilarity about the judges actually being right on the mark, scoring it exactly like it happened and against the showcased fighter. The fact this so rarely happens means the whole current systems sucks trough its core. Also the current 10 point must system itself sucks carrots. How is it that a dominating round scores exactly the same as a "could go either way" round. In a 10 rounder the first 5 rounds can be very competitive and then one takes over and punishes/schools/clowns/whatever the other fighter until the final bell. After the fight this may well be scored a draw if the judges liked the dominated boxer more until the other started to make him look silly, wich is completely insane of course. Also the effect of a flash/off balance KD wich can produce a 3 point swing in a round. Boxer is putting on the pressure, clearly being the better guy, then gets tagged by a punch and his knee/glove touches the canvas > KD. Gets counted, after that resumes his chase and hits his opponent with a couple more hard shots. One guy clearly lost every bit of the round besides the one KD punch and took much more punishment but wins the round with 10-8 instead of a 9-10 when his opponents knee /glove had just kept clear of the canvas. Also pretty common, and also very wrong scoring (but right according to the rules) if you look at what really went down in that round. I know that not every situation can be taken in account, but that's why the whole scoring system has to be changed. Not just the judges thing, but the scoring method as well. It just isn't remotely fair at the moment.
The judge that saw Brook v Porter a draw. The judge that had Broner winning 9 of 10 rounds against Ponce De Leon. The judge that had Broner 117-111 against Paulie.
