My solution for crooked/bad judging

Ok, makes sense now. But I don't think it would be right at all. Giving the boxer and his sympathetic team the established power to veto judges isn't right. A competitor can't be given the explicit power to accept or deny officials. They're obviously going to be biased, and would likely veto judges that hadn't judged in their favour in the past, even if the judge was reasonable to do so. No other sport does something like that, and boxing needs to be run more not less like a proper sport. And it sure wouldn't be right for the title orgs to commit to having the boxers back in their veto decisions, that would establish a direct bias that is now only indirect. The title orgs can't be that partial. This would cause more problems than it would solve.

I like what I thought at first you said better, ha. The title org deciding if a score was unacceptable, then refusing to sanction a fight for their title if that judge was assigned again. If this was done, the fighters camps would be in a better position to petition the title org to refuse an assigned judge. But they could only 'petition' the title org, the title org would have final say and shouldn't simply accept the demands of a boxer or his camp.

 

The simplest solution is very basic. One that should be practiced even raising kids. You do good - you get rewarded. You do bad - "insert consequence here" Example: You score a close but clear fight to the loser which happens to be the home town hero, you get a verbal warning. Next time it happens you get docked pay. The 3rd and last time it happens especially in a world champion ship fight, you are banned for X amount of time until you have completed remedial classes on how to judge properly. You will not get paid during that time. If you want to be a judge, you will do what you have to, to keep your job. If not, so long, you sucked to begin with or you wouldn't be here in remedial's.
Guys, these folks get paid well to sit down, and watch the greatest sport ever, and make observations on who is going to be the man/woman winning a boxing match. These judges hold some part of the boxers career in their hands. In almost any other job that's performed for income, if you do a bad job, you wont last long. Consequences or GTFO - simple.

 

At this point any solution is better than none.

 

How about three psych patients?

 

Just add 2 extra judges for championship fights. 2 extra judges would have negated Byrd's very wide card. You can't say the other two judges were corrupt because they were not in Canelo's favor. Is Oscar going to pay a judge to score it a draw?

 

If we limit it to one veto, it can work well.

At the moment the promoter basically chooses the judges, which is already a biased set-up. That's why house fighters tend to get the close decisions, it's in the judge's interests to favour the house / $$$ fighter so that they get appointed again. This is structural bias and is responsible for most robberies.

With both fighters having one veto, it is in a judge's interest to try to score impartially. If he favours either the house or the visiting fighter, he opens himself up to future vetos from one side or the other. Likewise a judge with a strong stylistic bias will try to compensate for it, leading to more predictable and fair judging.

A limited veto system is used in many judiciary systems, so it's not without precedent either.

 

The snag in your proposal is that the B-side would be in the same exact situation as always: if they "veto" the judge whom they think has been paid off by the A-side, the A-side will find another opponent. And we all know that most B-side fighters agree to anything the A-side wants.

So when Floyd offered Berto a fight deal with all the details in Floyd's favor, Berto could have told Floyd he didn't like the deal, and Floyd would have called some other fighter. Berto chose to bow to Floyd's demands rather than lose such a big payday.

 

That's why the veto right needs to be enforced as a regular practice by the title orgs.

 

OK so my judges are CJ Ross, Adelaide and ...

 

Yes lol, it's not immune to situations when the commissions proposes three bad judges ... but that's far less likely than the current situation where two bad judges is all that's needed.

 

The two parties would agree on the judges before mentioning anything to the title orgs. And that's how the B-side opponents would be chosen.

The way to stop corruption is to have judges and ref randomly chosen from a lottery bin the day before the fight, so the promotors wouldn't know who was going to judge their fight. That would eliminate all the lavish pre-fight that the promotors have with the judges and ref, where they give them the gold watches and jewellery.

Also, judges who get universally panned by the press and fans after a fight should be relegated to low-level fights for at least three years, and the really serious cases should be dealt with by just banning the judge/ref.

 

Let me guess, you don't like Buddhist monks either?

 

A Firing squad for judges who turn in ridiculous scores like Byrd seems like a more rational solution at this point.

 

I think the ref assigned should be able to be a judge. Not sure how that would work but he's got the best seat in the house