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

@clum Thank you very much for your comment as I was thinking of responding to George in the same way about his comment about so many even rounds, like it's such a crazy thing to score that many even rounds.

I can't help but think that there's a correlation between referees being judges and even rounds being very common and normal in boxing. It seems that about the time when referees stopped being one of the judges all of a sudden even rounds stopped becoming as common. I mean at this point in America, a judge scoring even a single even round in a prize fight is seen as blasphemous.

Whereas back in the old days it was not uncommon for the majority of the rounds in a match to be scored even. So when we talk about the benefits of the referee being one of the judges, one of them was the fact that refs scored a lot of rounds even because it was too hard to pick a winner unless something major happened in a round that would be obvious that someone deserved to win a round. If it wasn't obvious that someone did something significant enough in a round to win a round, it was simply scored even which often was good.

And looking at this in the context of judging accuracy I think a lot of the controversy surrounding decisions these days has to do with every round having to have a winner, at least in the way official judges are taught to score.

Personally I think scoring was a lot more accurate when more rounds were scored even. For somebody to win a round they really had to do something big in a round, even if it was just a single shot like staggering an opponent or something. It doesn't necessarily mean a fighter had to dominate a round but to win a round he had to do something in a round that left an impression in the ref's mind.

I think there's a lost art to dual referee-judges from a bygone era. Nowadays judges are forced to score rounds 10-9 even if a round is even they are taught to find something to say someone won the round. That creates scoring inaccuracy because judges are being forced to make a subjective decision when many times it can be argued for either fighter and it's better to score the round even and move on to the next round instead of putting a fighter ahead in the bout because you are being forced to choose a winner every round.

 

It's not poorer than scoring rounds for fighters 10-9 when a round is pretty much even. I'd rather see a champion of the world who got credit for winning rounds that he quite clearly won rather than becoming a champion due to "flip a coin" rounds that a judge just randomly gave him because he was forced to make somebody win the round.

There's no one size fits all solution to rounds. But what I"m pointing out is that judging today is very different than judging from past eras, when there were referee judges, when even rounds were common as opposed to being frowned upon.

And with all the complaining that goes on here about bad decisions we really need to look at how different judging is now than what it used to be. Referee's not being judges anymore and even rounds being frowned upon have a lot to do that. If we went back to the old days with lots of even rounds then you may end up with better judging by and large.

 

But at the same time they were allowed to score rounds even so refs who were judges weren't tasked with having to choose a winner every round. If something major happened in a round it would be obvious to them that one fighter won a round. But if nothing major happened in a round and it was pretty even he would just score it even. In a way it was much simpler and much easier to score that way. It's really a lost art, how rounds were scored back in the day with even rounds being common and dual referee judges. Judging as a whole is totally different today, and with all the complaining about decisions nowadays you would think we would look back to the old ways of judging as often more accurate and perhaps a better system.