Again we saw bad scorecards, and again favoring of the bigger name/featured fighter, which of course isn't really a surprise anymore because that is what we've seen for decades now. But I do have a solution, which actually might work but needs cooperation from the alphabet orgs (which I know dooms it right there) to work. If the IBF/IBO/WBA/WBC/WBO all implement a veto right to both boxers fighting for their major and minor belts for partial, bad and/or corrupt judges and referees, the rotten apples would be filtered out within less than a year because they would almost certainly be denied by one party or the other. I think this would be a simple solution to clean up boxing in that regard, do you think tis could work with the alphabets behind it.
You're forgetting that all parties involved from the alphabets to the promoters to the venues to the judges to the fighters are about making that sweet moolah.
Go back to sleep, when NSAC tells the world that doing illegal IV 14x over the limit at home is perfectly fine then you have no case.
I heard most of theses orgs are hiding WMD That should sort it out Now america and UK go do your thing
I think that's an excellent idea. Best practical/easy solution I've seen so far, I just think for practical reasons it has to be limited, e.g. 1 or 2 vetos per team. It might not have changed Canelo-GGG, in fact K2 probably would've been tempted to veto Moretti if anyone, but in principle it's an excellent idea.
Would it make enemies of the vetoed judges? I still like my idea of all fights being judged by three priests, three rabbis and three imams.....
Possibly, but it doesn't matter as you can always keep vetoing the same judge in the future. In fact, it would be possible to veto a judge on stylistic grounds w/o making enemies, e.g. Judge Joe Bloggs tends to prefer come-forward fighters, which is why we veto him. At the moment a protest is more likely to make enemies because it's so rare.
who cares... they would be veto'd out everytime they get offered to that fighter anyway. I don't trust priests for a number of reasons, you don't want 3 rabbi's with a muslim fighter in the ring and you don't want 3 imams with a guy from any other religion in the ring.
I disturbingly agree that the title orgs are our most realistic defence against promoters and commissions aiding and abetting obviously wrong cards. The WBA strongly stated the fight last week was "marred by an incorrect scorecard". That's more than Oscar or the NSAC said, who insisted Byrd is a good judge even when they said she'll be given a break. A title org could take a stand and keep a hit list of judges with unacceptable scores, and refuse to sanction a fight for their title if a judge on the hit list was assigned. They do have the power to approve assigned judges, they should wield that power more. And the WBC has initiated a lot of rules changes that were later accepted by commissions across the board. You have to worry however whether the title org would be willing to put a judge on their hit list if the score was against their champion. Obviously they want the game to go on, and to work with champions and promoters who they can easily get their pound of flesh from.
Yes, ideally the title orgs should be enforcing fairness. But I think @Robney's proposal presents an additional safeguard to that, all the title orgs have major problems.
I misread the original post, but I still don't really understand it. The boxers competing for a title would have the right to veto judges? They already have that, with the promoter representing the fighter having the sway to refuse judges. And giving the actual competitor that sort of power, no I don't agree.
At the moment it's very difficult for a promoter to refuse a judge, it can develop into a long battle as the commission chooses the judges. The protest can be denied. The proposal is that each fighter's team has the right to veto one judge.
No they don't in most cases. In many occasions the local board/state commission determine the officials and boxers can only object to it, and just hope they will be changed out which only happens in a few instances. My idea is that it HAS to be honored from both camps all the time (alphabets see to that), with a maximum of 2 vetos. What happens in that case is that really bad apples like Lawrence Cole, Roger Tilleman, Ian John Lewis, Adelaide Byrd and such will be out of a job for sure, because they certainly would be veto'd by at least one of the two camps. And if the board/state commission refuses, sanctioning will be dropped from the alphabets. You can have additional things with it, like regularly refusing honoring of the rules from some boards/state commissions will disqualify them for even holding a sanctioned titlefight in the future. And officials that get veto'd a lot but can still get some fights going up for review.