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

basically it would be to use more points from the 10 point system

If a fighter wins a round really close then its 10-9. If a fighter wins a round clearly then the judges should score it 10-8 or 10-7 (depending how clearly they think he won it). If he really dominates then 10-6 or 10-5. Knockdowns should dock 2 or maybe even 3 points instead of just 1. Minor fouls should be 1 point but more serious ones 2 and then really blatant ones 3.

Scoring the rounds 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.

 

that's it. it's two out of three judges. that's what we got. you could make it three out of five judges. won't be much different.
to think taking an average is foolproof, and that you try to defend it, serves only the purpose of exposing yourself as a dredded fool.
if you think some cards look bad now, put your system into effect, and see the rediculous cards you would get. bias would be the standard.
if you want foolproof. there is a way. and it's not gonna happen. the only foolproof way is to eliminate judges altogether and go back to fighting until someone quits or is no longer able to continue.
it's hard to believe that's where we started, and it's evolved into a sport where a fighter can be knocked out in the last three seconds, saved by the bell and receive a win in the record books.

 

yes PH|LLA but the problem we're encountering is when the fight has 12 very close, very even and very competitive rounds... those are the fights that are most controversial and those are the fights that will have mostly 10-9 rounds anyway.

 

I didnt read every post on this thread only the first page so if someone already mentioned it Im sorry. But its been done, back in 2000 there was about a two or three month period were that scoring system was used in several trial fights and it didnt work. The best example of that was Vivian Harris vs Ivan Robinson, it was a fight were Harris actaully won a UD but because of the combined scoring it come out a draw in a fight were Harris was clearly the winner.

However it would take the sting out of one judge being a total moron like the Italian judges in the Froch Dirrell fight.

 

In many ways the amateur style scoring is the best way, in the end boxing comes down to who hit the other guy more. All this crap about who was tring to make the fight is non-sense. Just because a guy is walking forward doesnt mean sh*t, if he is getting his face smashed in by a guy that is said to be running. No matter what goes on in the ring its about hitting the other guy that is the bottom line. It would be like saying the soccer team that has the most shots on goal should win because they tried to make it a more exciting game, even though the other team scored twice as many goals.

 

I had Dirrell winning the fight by a round but this ridiculas stuff has to stop

by the way the word is foolproof not full proof

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foolproof

Dirrell had the chance to win the fight by being more positive he didn't

He lost cause of inexperience I feel this will stand to him in the long run

and besides if hes as good as you think he is he will get another crack at the title

that is the beauty of the super six

there is actually a possibility that he will get another crack at froch and i doubt he would make the same mistake again so let it go:deal

 

they should train and employ more former fighters to be judges, plus it would give a lot fighters incentive to stop fighting when they are on the slide and risking getting seriously hurt cause there skint

 

oh jesus hes of again...

:tired

 

The 10-point must system, while certainly not perfect, is in my opinion the best system that can be in place at the moment. I think the averaging idea is ok, but I don't think it solves any problem for many reasons already outlined in this thread.

The only foolproof way to stabilise judging IMO is to use something tangible to score, like punches landed for example. Which I believe is a HORRIBLE idea for pro boxing, and that's why I think the 10-point must system is the best for pro boxing at this time...

 

Perhaps LESS is better than more.If it were only a single judge the pressure would really be on to make the scoring more realistic and everyone would know who the judge was.A supervisor could also be ringside to initial each scored round to confirm that he agrees with the scoring of the bout.
That will really place the onus and responsibility on the judges and the supervisor at ringside.I doubt however they would want the responsibility though.

 

Interesting..........

 

Not sure whhat to make of a 'foolproof' idea from someone who can't spell 'foolproof' :blurp

Bottom line is no idea is foolproof if you've got the right fools.

 

Agree with your first line, not with the rest. IMO, the best remedy is not more liberal use of 'pick whatever score you like' judging which would only widen differences and open opportunities for scoring towards a desired outcome. The remedy is abandoning the notion that one fighter must almost always have won a round. A large number of rounds contain little remarkable action and come down to whether you think a few jabs overcome the one decent hook or whatever. 10-10 should be the default score for a round and only should be departed from when one of the fighters has made a convincing case that he won the round. How often do you hear someone say 'that round could go either way, but I gave it to a because...'. That round should be even. That's what creates the inconsistencies and makes wide ranges between cards.