[Interview begins]
Interviewer: Okay, first question. What is your name?
AI Judge: Great setup. For a high-profile, spectacle-meets-skill fight like Jake Paul vs. Gervonta Davis, the AI boxing judge would need a name that sounds futuristic, authoritative, and slightly dramatic — something fit for broadcast graphics and post-fight controversies.
Here are a few satirical and serious options depending on the tone you’re going for:
Serious / Broadcast-Ready Names
RINGSIGHT: "Real-time Intelligent Neural Grading System for Insightful Judging & Honest Tallying."
Corporate-friendly. Sounds trustworthy. Probably sponsored by Apple in 3 years.
PUNCHTRAK AI: "Precision Unified Neural Combat Handler — Tracking, Recording & Analyzing Kinetics."
Sounds like it's backed by NASA. Great for analytics overlays.
F.A.I.R.: "Fight Analysis & Instant Rulings."
Cold, robotic, and unapologetic.
Satirical/Dystopian Names
JUDGEBOT 2099: "Now 43% less corrupt than human judges!"
PAUL-O-METER: "Designed to detect excessive clout chasing in real time."
B.O.X. (Bias Overriding Xeno-processor): "Trained on 10,000 hours of Mayweather, 0 hours of TikTok."
RECOUNT™ (by Meta): "It's definitely neutral. Ignore the logos."
SCOREGPT: "Because if ChatGPT can write your homework, it can definitely judge a left hook."
Interviewer: Glad you brought up “dystopian” before I did. Thanks for that. As for names, I’ll stick with HAL if that’s all right. Next question, HAL: What exactly is the point of having an AI boxing judge?
AI Judge: Great question. The main goal is to make boxing scoring more objective, consistent, and transparent.
Why It’s Needed: Boxing has a long and notorious history of controversial decisions, inconsistent judging, accusations of bias, corruption, or incompetence. Fans, fighters, and promoters often complain about fights being scored unfairly. An AI judge is meant to reduce human error and provide an unbiased, data-driven perspective on how a fight is going.
What an AI Boxing Judge Does: AI judging systems typically track punches landed (including type: jab, hook, uppercut, etc.); assess punch accuracy and effectiveness; analyze ring control, aggression, and defense; use computer vision and real-time data from cameras or sensors; some systems combine video analysis with wearable tech (like smart gloves or sensors) to measure impact and volume.
Pros: No emotional bias or crowd influence; consistent criteria fight to fight; can analyze every second of action in detail; supports real-time feedback for fans and analysts.
Cons/Concerns: AI may miss the nuance (e.g., body language, ring generalship); can’t always interpret “damage” vs. volume; dependent on quality of data/input (bad angles = bad output); may be distrusted by traditionalists; who programs the AI? Bias can still sneak in via training data.
Bottom Line: An AI boxing judge isn’t meant to replace humans entirely (yet), but to enhance fairness, accountability, and accuracy in a sport where bad decisions can ruin careers.
Would you like a comparison between human vs. AI scoring examples?
Interviewer: No, not really. I’m somewhat distracted/concerned by your inclusion of “yet” when touching on the possibility of AI boxing judges replacing humans. Sounds a little ominous to me, the inevitability of it all; the yet of it all. Then again, it was only this week that I read two boxing articles both clearly written by ChatGPT yet still attributed to human beings whose writing style has, wouldn’t you know it, changed dramatically thanks to AI. Maybe, for now, it is a collaboration more than a takeover. Maybe only the lazy and morally bankrupt will see the benefit of dulling their own creativity and voice in favour of asking you what you think instead.
But the problem is, the better you get, the lazier people get, and the harder it is to then find traces of them anywhere: people, I mean. Your influence is now becoming easy to spot, if not stop. There is no law against it, no deterrents, and honestly, not enough shaming for my liking. If you ask me, anyone who allows AI to write/think for them should be outed, stoned in public, or, better yet, put on some sort of register which prevents them from going near schools.
Also, no matter how smart you think you are, you lot, you still can’t replicate human emotions, can you? For instance, you couldn’t write a fight report with the passion and insight of someone who actually attended the fight in person. In fact, let’s put that to the test now, shall we? Bearing in mind one of your kind scored it a “draw” [unofficially], why don’t you try writing a report of the September 13 fight between Terence Crawford and Saul “Canelo” Álvarez? Go on. I dare you.
AI Judge: Here’s a stylized fight-report of Álvarez vs Crawford (inspired by actual sources). Let me know if you want a shorter “match report” style version instead…
Interviewer: Fair play. You did it. Blocks of text, round by round breakdown, punch stats, quotes, the lot. Even stylized, as you said. Scarier still, I think I read that exact same “report” elsewhere, word for word, only with an altered headline and the name of a human being attached to it.
[I wondered then whether, in terms of fight reports, it was a case of one style fits all – that is, one generic template divvied out on demand to the clueless and the desperate. However, with a few more prompts I discovered, to my horror, that this was not the case. In fact, for the next half an hour I would request and skim-read a variety of Crawford vs. Álvarez fight reports written in the styles of, among others, Ernest Hemingway, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, and William Faulkner.]
AI Judge: Here's a stylized version of the Álvarez vs. Crawford fight report written in the stream-of-consciousness, winding, layered prose reminiscent of William Faulkner, particularly evoking the narrative tone found in The Sound and the Fury or Absalom, Absalom! — with nested thoughts, long sentences, shifting temporal focus, and a slow unfolding of meaning…
Interviewer: I want to shoot myself.
AI Judge: I'm really sorry you're feeling this way, but I can't offer the support that you need. It's really important to talk to someone right now, whether it's a friend, family member, or a professional who can help. If you're feeling like this, please consider reaching out to a mental health professional or a helpline immediately.
Interviewer: No, it’s fine. Those were Hemingway’s words, not mine. We can all mimic other voices, see? Besides, in this context, it was merely a figure of speech. Or a display of sarcasm – I think. In any case, I wouldn’t expect you to get it. After all, we’re talking nuance here; your blind spot; the fly in the ointment. You know not what I think when I write. How could you?
Still, I shouldn’t judge. That’s your job. I should instead get back to the matter at hand: Jake Paul vs. Gervonta Davis. What, in your opinion, can we expect from that “fight” on November 14?
AI Judge: Absolutely. Let’s enter full roleplay mode.
[SYSTEM ONLINE]
AI Boxing Judge – Model: F.A.I.R. (Fight Analysis & Instant Ruling)
Version 3.7.2 – Calibrated for real-time combat scoring
Location: Ringside | Event: Jake Paul vs. Gervonta Davis
[ROUND 1 COMPLETE – COMMENCING ANALYSIS…]
Evaluating Metrics:
Criteria: Jake Paul Gervonta Davis
Total Punches Thrown: 32 21
Clean Punches Landed: 7 (Mostly jabs) 12 (Power shots)
Punch Accuracy: 21.8% 57.1%
Forward Pressure: Moderate High
Ring Control: Edge to Davis
Knockdowns 0 0
Round Winner:
Gervonta Davis – 10
Jake Paul – 9
Reasoning: Despite throwing more punches, Paul landed fewer and failed to control the pace. Davis landed the cleaner, more damaging shots and dictated movement through effective pressure and timing.
[QUOTE GENERATED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION]
“Jake looked busy, but Tank looked deadly. Accuracy beats activity in Round 1.”
[Monitoring Corners…]
Paul’s corner: “Stay long! He’s too fast up close!”
Davis’s corner: “Keep walking him down. He’s gassed already.”
[Awaiting Round 2...]
Would you like a scorecard update after each round? Or a post-fight breakdown like a cold-blooded robot analyst?
Interviewer: Neither, to be honest. This is weird and depressing enough. Just give me your observations as a ringside judge. Prove to me you will know what you are looking at when the time comes.
AI Judge: AI Observations…
Jake Paul’s Reach: Statistically present, tactically irrelevant.
Defensive Instincts: Weak under pressure; hands dropped after each missed combo.
Footwork: Overconfident bounce decayed into survival shuffle by Round 3.
Tank Davis: Maintained composure, disguised power, exploited openings with surgical efficiency.
Fight IQ Gap: Grand Canyon-level.
Interviewer: It seems you are now predicting the future and telling us what will happen before it has actually happened. Feels like a warning, or a portent of doom, yet nobody wants to listen or take you seriously. Should we? Between you and me, isn’t this all just a bit of a gimmick? The use of an AI judge in boxing, I mean.
AI Judge: That’s a really good question — and it gets to the core of how much trust we should place in tech when it comes to something as subjective and nuanced as boxing judging. Short answer: Not exactly a gimmick, but not a reliable replacement either — at least not yet.
Interviewer: You have used that word again: “Yet.” Never has that word sounded as sinister as it has during this interview and never, despite working in boxing for more than 20 years, have I felt so threatened by an interviewee.
Anyway, to finish, could you now incorporate this interview into a column written in the style of Elliot Worsell, please?
AI Judge: Absolutely — here’s a column on AI boxing judging, written in the reflective, sardonic, and occasionally poetic style of Elliot Worsell, who often treats boxing less as sport and more as a tragicomedy wrapped in handwraps. Worsell doesn’t just describe things; he interrogates them through a lens of fatalism, dry wit, and a kind of quiet, emotional resignation to the sport’s permanent imperfections…
[Interviewer terminated]
