RBR'ers.... who are the forums best scorers?

Honestly, I wouldn't normally, but I'm drunk and he is scoring the same as me right in this fight.. so I'll also add CST80

 

Yeah the CST dude, he often has the only scorecard that makes me think someone other than me is even watching the fight. I know scoring isn’t a precise science but goddamn a large majority of boxing viewers have no idea about the sport.

 

More often than not.

 

The worst??? Me??? You don't really mean that, you're just playin. I think all this animostity stems from my scoring of Canelo GGG 1. You gotta get over that. You can't have it both ways. CST is being praised for having scores that everyone else disagrees with. I should get that same "coolish outlier scorer" guy for my Canelo GGG 1 score. It's all about not being influenced by the herd, having an independent mind, and scoring it based on what you see, not by peer pressure or external influences.

 

You're probably not going to get the best scorer this way. What you'll get is the opinion of a lot of bad scorers who agree with other more popular bad scorers. Much as I like democracy, I think you would do better picking a couple of guys who you regard highly and then asking their opinions. For my part, I see the site's worst scorers touted as being the best almost every week in RBRs. People don't keep track of that sort of thing. They'll name a moderator because they're a toady suck up or one of their friends. Sometimes, they'll name a guy who projects an air of confidence and who's demonstrated competence in some other related capacity, like boxing trivia down in classic. There's also a participation bias. I think that the biggest contributors to the RBRs will also receive undo accolades.

I don't know who's the best. All I know is who I disagree with the most.

 

I think the way judges ought to be evaluated is by how most people who saw the fight scored it. Often, a clear consensus emerges. One places where one can log their scorecards, such as boxrec, you can see how hundreds of people voted. The right score is probably the average of them all. You take the judge's scorecard, compare it against the average of several hundred votes, and then you know if you have a good judge or not. If the judge consistently strays from the average opinion then you know that he's a bad judge.

 

See, this is how we ought to do it. Have people dig up their CVs on RBRs, post their scorecards, and see how consistent they are. Then we assign people a grade or something for their accuracy. What I loved about Kirk's gambling thread was how clear cut it all was. There was a running tally of how many fights we each called right or wrong for the year. Some people batted 50% while the top ranked scored around 75%. There was a clear pecking order.

 

Markusflorez99

 

@IntentionalButt and @PinoyProdigy ate the two stand outs.

 

PinoyProdigy

 

Interesting question!

Whilst they may not always match my own - it's subjective of course, scoring - I always get the feeling the following posters know how to score and are consistent in what they look for, at least strive to keep personal bias out of it, and whilst I might not always agree they can eloquently explain their scores

IntentionalButt
PinoyProdigy
The Professor
George Crowcroft
Pimp C
Serge
CST80

 

@shadow111 I think I'm challenging you for worst and not @Shadow