Referees used to be one of the judges, why did that stop?

In the old days there were 3 judges that scored a match, 2 ring-side judges and the referee. But at some point this practice stopped and now we have 3 ring-side judges and the referee no longer scores each round.

Does anyone know the backstory behind why this practice stopped and why referees are no longer one of the 3 judges?

Now the reasons why it's better for referees not to be one of the judges are obvious, so they can focus on refereeing without worrying about scoring. But, at the same time I think they are reasons that it's better for the referee to be one the judges. First of all, the referee has a unique view of the action, he's closer to the fighters and he sees things and would notice things that maybe the judges would miss. For example a referee could use a different criteria to score rounds than a ring side judge would. If a referee for example were to warn a fighter repeatedly for holding or fouling he could use that to score a round.

The reason why I bring this up is because you look at today how controverisal judges decisions are. And it got me thinking maybe part of the problem is that the referee is no longer one of the judges.

I think it would be interesting to go back and look at boxing back when referees were one of the judges and maybe make a list of the best referee judges way back when.

I think that in many cases it would help if the referee still scored rounds and was one of the judges like in the old days. People complain about judges decisions so much these days that I think if referees were one of the judges again it would make decisions more interesting. No one is closer to the action than the referee. Back in the old days there was a real art to being a referee. Referees had a lot of responsiblity, with scoring and being a referee. But in a way the two went hand in hand, as scoring rounds was part of the job description for referees back then.

I just want to know more about what specifically caused this practice to come to an end, and to make referees no longer be one of the judges. Did this practice of refs being one of the judges stop all of a sudden in one particular year or was it phased out slowly over a long period of time?

What is your opinions on referees being judges? I want to hear both sides of the argument : the benefits and the downsides. Personally I think it would be really cool if referees became one of the judges again. And before you dismiss this as a bad idea, think about how much controversy there is in judging nowadays without referees being one of the judges. Maybe making refs a judge again would actually improve decisions. What do you think?

 

What do you think about referees being judges? Can you list some of the benefits to referees being one of the judges?

 

Does anyone know when was the last time there was a referee as one of the judges in a major bout?

 

lol funny guy but don't you think judges decisions are more controversial today than they were back when refs were judges?

 

Interesting about referees being the sole judge and him just raising whoever's hand at the end. No ring-side judges needed. When did that practice end in the UK and what caused it to end?

That's true, there's no perfect way. But what is better? Do you prefer if the ref was one of the judges or the sole judge? What are the benefits and downsides of each system?

 

But shouldn't that go hand-in-hand? I mean in other sports the referees play a much bigger role in determining the final score than boxing referees who aren't judges do. Think about it, in american football for example, the referees call penalties on teams which are subjective and those decisions determine the final score. For example, a ref in football could make a bad call penalizing an offense, a team might not score as a result of that decision and may end up losing the match.

I do see some of the pitfalls of having referees be one of the judges, so they can focus on being a referee but I also think there are benefits to referees being judges. I think in many cases a ref might be a better judge than a ring-side scorer. I'd be interested to go back through history and look at who some of the best dual referee-judges were.

 

I'm not arguing that referees who aren't one of the judges don't affect the flow and outcome of a bout. I agree they do, but what I'm saying is compared to other sports they have less of an impact on who wins on average than referees in other sports do.

Think about this for moment : while of course there are examples of refs deducting a point, or stopping a match too soon or too late, or letting a fighter clinch too much, etc, the outcome of the vast majority of boxing matches are not determined by the referee. There are plenty of matches where the ref never calls a single foul, there are matches where he never even has to break up a clinch, etc. But in american football, in every single game there are loads penalties, which subjective decisions made by the ref that have a major influence on who wins. So what I'm saying is that current refs who aren't judges don't have anywhere near the influence on who wins and loses a match on average in boxing vs referees in other sports.