In the early 20th century in some states the ref would score the fight along with two judges. In England the ref was sometimes the only scorer. With all the controversial decisions lately do you think it would be better to get rid of the third judge and let the ref submit his score as well?
I agree but the counter argument is that the ref has too much to do already. I like the idea though because it offers a different perspective.
I think they can do an adequate job of refereeing and scoring at the same time, so why not? They have the best position of anyone so their opinion should carry plenty of weight.
Most of you guys (and gals) are probably too young to remember this fight. But back in the day, Floyd Patterson in one of his last fights fought Jimmy Ellis for the heavyweight championship. Jimmy Ellis at the time was best known as an Ali sparring partner. If Patterson won, he would have won the heavyweight championship for the 3rd time. The fight was on TV and I believe somewhere in Scandinavia. I can't remember exactly where. The ref was the ONLY SCORER in the fight. Patterson got knocked down at least once early on in the fight, maybe twice. But he came back and at least in my young mind, there was no question he had won the fight. When the fight ended, the ref immediately walked over to Ellis and lifted his hand in victory. I was crushed. It was the first real rip-off decision I had experienced in my life. But I've never forgotten it. It has always surprised me a bigger deal wasn't made of this fight, because it would have put Patterson even more in the history books. Yes, the ref is on top of the action. But let him keep his one job. To protect the fighters.
Why ? A judge and a referee do two completelly different things.....is much better keep things separated....
The ref as the sole scorer is a terrible idea but it was the norm in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A lot of the epic fights in Madison Square Garden during the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's involved the ref and two judges. I'd like to see some state athletic commissions go old school and give it a try.
just imagine if Eddie Cotton (who was doing everything to make it a close fight) was scoring and refereeing Lewis-Tyson the ref is there to protect the fighters, the ringside judges (however bad they are) are there to score the fight
It's a good argument I just disagree. I'd at least like to see the state commissions let refs submit unofficial scores for the public to see. It would of course add some "unnecessary" controversy but it would be interesting.
This. No way a ref should have the responsibility of scoring as well as enforcing the rules, and protecting the fighters.
I see refs in UK scoring the undercard non title bouts and hate it. The ref has enough to do in the ring, and judging shouldn't be left to one person. If anything, I'd like to see somehow the press row scoring be counted as an official score in addition to the ringside judges.
I imagine 3 people at ring side dedicated to scoring the fight is better than one guy in the ring whose 1st responsiblity is to protect the fighters and ref the right.
nope, it'll put less focus on their actual job of reffereeing and there'll be even more incompetent reffing than we're currently experiencing. not top mention a ref is no more difficult to buy off and corrupt than a judge is, so wouldn't change a damn thign as far as fairness, there'd just be one more crooked job to investigate.