Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by FrankinDallas, May 23, 2023.
What is the argument against open scorecards?
He does. Atlas is such an attention *****.
Yeah, but power is just one aspect of a fight. If a guy feather fisted but controlling the fight, that counts too.
For that reason, i think you overstate the importance of being there. As a matter of fact, i would argue it's easier to judge a fight on TV because you get a clear view at all times.
I feel like if we can bank online, we should be able to judge fights online.
Just ask yourself this: Do you trust 3 judges or the consensus of this board to evaluate who won a fight?
To me, it's the latter. I feel like in the moment, most people are honest. The nutriders for both sides cancel themselves out. Yeah, it's an issue if you have a mega popular guy. But like i said, i still feel like most people are honest in the moment and the public would get it right much better than 3 old guys.
Problem is with fanboys or hated fighters of course. But if you have a proven panel of online judging with consequences for good amd bad cards it will filter out corruption and promote fair judging. Atleast q lot compared to the current structure.
Its a sport where a winner is picked based on three guys judgement of the rule. It is flawed like any sport that rely on human judgement. No federal rule is going to change this.
First of all, every fight isn't televised. Who is going to pay to televise every boxing card? The Federal Commission?
Also, people watching at home don't get a clear view at all times. You get ONE view ... the director of the broadcast's view.
The reason people watching on TV tend to have the same opinions on a fight is because they are all watching the EXACT same thing. They are seeing the same pictures chosen by the director of the broadcast. The media, the cameras covering the wide shot, the announcers the press are all on the SAME side of the ring.
Sometimes there are two camera men in opposing corners standing on the ring apron. Sometimes there is only one cameraman in one corner and the other is the wide shot. And how many times have you heard announcers between rounds say they missed or didn't see a punch, and then they need the director to go back and find an angle from one of those two cameramen around the ring that shows the punch land? And sometimes they don't have it, either. Or sometimes they can't find it before the next round begins?
Meanwhile, the official judges are on either side and directly opposite everyone in the media section and have a completely different angle than EVERYONE watching at home.
The reason three judges sometimes have different opinions is because all three of them are seeing the fight differently than EVERYONE else. That's done for a reason. Because, getting three opposing views of the same fight, within feet of the punches being thrown - not sitting thousands of miles away watching on a computer or TV screen - their combined scores IN TOTAL are supposed to represent a fairer view of what actually happened.
If you've ever yelled "What were they watching?" What they were watching was an angle totally different than the angle you were watching. And it was an angle totally different than the judge sitting opposite them and on either side.
Go to the fights. Sit ringside. Score yourself with no replays and only a minute between rounds. Volunteer to write an article for this site or another and get a press pass. Sit close. Walk around the ring. See things from other angles. Or became an actual judge (most judges these days are pretty old and there aren't a lot of young judges waiting in the wings to replace them because it's a thankless job.)
Unless you are sitting in a cavernous stadium a mile away from the ring, live boxing is greater, more intense and more exciting. It's nothing like it is on TV.
When you do, you'll roll your eyes at people who think it should be done by people watching at home.
I can't necessarily disagree with anything you said. However, i will say, there are limitations to watching in person (one angle) and advantages to watching on TV (more of a bird's eye view).
Whatever the case, this 3 old people judging a fight is COMPLETELY antiquated. There has to be a better way to ensure the right man wins most of the time.
The way scores are collected at the end of every round it doesn't really make a difference, does it?
One of the best posts ever. It cannot be understated enough the effect the broadcast director has on fan perceptions, and particularly why fans at home are so bewildered at how the judges score certain rounds. It has a lot to do with the angle they are watching it from. The judges not only see it from a different perspective than the home viewer, but they are looking "up" at the action, so they are able to see whether or not certain punches landed from that vantage point that we cannot, and sometimes, the reverse is true, and they can't see what we see because of the angle. This is why judges often come to a different score than the home viewer, they are seeing the fight from a very different perspective.
Never going to happen too many people profiting from the sport being divided in the US. We'll never see a boxers union, we'll never see a federal commission because nothing happens unless money is the driver and there is no financial benefit for those who could decide on creating such organisations. Boxing will remain corrupt, will remain a bunch of small organisations all working against each other as they scramble for whatever money they can get their grubby little hands on, keeping boxing a niche sport it's become in the US. It's going to take the near death of the sport to instigate change and we're nowhere near that just yet.