The Ultimate & Full Proof Way To Eliminate Poor Judging & Judges...

fair enough.

but, if you chose 3 out of the 6 judges at random and say 2 had fighter A winning, the other 4 could have had fighter B winning but you'll only know the score card for one of those 4.

Ya get me?

 

Perhaps 5 judges, and whoever gets 3 out of the 5 wins.

Nothings perfect and whatever you do, people will say it's wrong and we will still get people crying robberies on close fights even if there were 99 judges at ringside.

 

Good thread, and I like walk with me's 1st idea, and the 5 judges idea. As someone on here recently made a post about it, a lot of these judges aren't even fans of the sport and have no idea how to score a round. Plus no one is ever held accountable when a robbery has occured, it just gets swept under the carpet.

Just my opinion on how to score a round: Challenger vs champion is irrelevant as the ONLY thing that matters is the fight, so score the ****in fight, nothing else. The champion can have one advantage only, which is he gets to keep the belt if the fight is a draw.

If a round is very very close, just score it 10/10 and move on.

First and foremost, the object of the sport is to hit and not be hit. The person who lands significantly more than his opponent should win the round. There is an exception to this rule which is the following. If fighter A is landing more but fighter B is landing the harder shots and hurting his opponent more, then there may be a case to give the round to fighter B.

However, when I say harder shots I don't mean anything that is not a jab. If the jab is weak but still enough to stop the opponent in his tracks (not hurt him, there's a difference) or stop him from getting his punches off, then it's effective, end of story. Paulie Malignaggi may be feather fisted but if he's stopping you from fighting your fight, he's effective and should be rewarded.

On the other hand, if a person is throwing wonderful combinations, landing cleanly, but his opponent just walks through it all and lands on his opponent and hurts him more, then he should be rewarded for that. It's not about jab vs hooks, its about what do those punches do. For example, in the later stages of Cotto/Margo, Cotto was landing some awesome shots on Margo but it did not stop Margo from fighting his fight. He was still able to walk through the punishment and dish out his own punishment and hurt Cotto more than Cotto was able to hurt him. So of course in this case, Margo should be rewarded.

This may all seem like common sense but its clear as day that there are a lot of people who do not have a clue how to score a fight. It's called the sweet science for a reason-some folks think boxing is bar fighting.

So have some proper guidelines on scoring. (at the moment its all about preferences- one judge may prefer mindless agression even if the boxer doesn't land, and he can get away with giving the round to that boxer)

If there's a controversy, make the judges explain their reasoning.

This combined with the 5 judges would certainly help. And get some real boxing fans on the judging panel.

 

I don't see how this would eliminate poor judging?

 

that method would give close rounds the same importance as dominant rounds, something that is already a problem in boxing.

What they need to do is start being more liberal with the 10 point must system.

If a fighter wins a round clearly then they should score it 10-8 or 10-7. If he really dominates then 10-6 or 10-5. Knockdowns should dock 2 or maybe even 3 points instead of just 1. Scoring the fight 10 to the winner and 9 to the loser all the time is not helpful.

If they started being more liberal with the 10 point must system then close rounds that can go either way would have less of an impact on the final score.

 

If judge A is blind.. and has a 9-10 in one round.. where the other 2 judges have a 10-9 in that round.. then the 10-9 round stands as it is the majority score..

Therefore the blind judge's 9-10 round is overruled..

make sense?

 

Ya it seems to work in that situation alright, but (and i have nothing to back this up) theres gotta be other situations where this would create problems as well.

 

sometimes 2 judges make the lesser decision, and one judge made the right one. As flawed as the system is now at least it averages out so that overall we can have the right decision.

My system works much better

 

I think the MO is a good idea. Together with the 3 of 5 approach, you get more or less a good number of fair decisions. However, it means paying 5 judges to travel.

Another issue would be to have PROFESSIONAL judges, like in the NBA or NFL. Who do nothing but judging, have meetings where they get schooled and have to explain when they score outrageously, and probably also can be fired or appointed only to lesser fights when they perform badly.