Would judges be better off watching a fight on a monitor backstage?

I agree with this 100%. Am not sure how sports in the states work when it comes to officials being responsible. But major international sports like Soccer, Rugby, Cricket all have independent wings of the sport's governing bodies who monitor the performance of match officials. I know that in soccer they have a panel of retired refs watch the performace of the officials and they have to sit through a debriefing process where the panel questions the ref. Would be difficult with boxing since there isnt only one global governing body. But someone needs to come up with something. That's a little different than saying soccer refs should be in a room somewhere locked away under the stadium and we shouldn't know who they are, lol.

Theres a well known boxing official from my home town. Hes about 80 years old and was still working recently. He went overseas to do a fight, a fight which 2 judges scored like 10-2 one way while he scored it 10-2 the other way. Afterwards his excuse was he thought the guy losing was the other guys name and incorrectly marked his scorecard as such.. These are the kind of people they use to judge fights. Cant even make that **** up lol..

I can guarantee it has at some point, given the sport's shady history. I was thinking that, we love the most corrupt sport in the world. but I would have thought we would hear about it.

Now I’m curious though. I wonder if someone has ever altered from the judges score before.. I can guarantee it has at some point, given the sport's shady history.

A lot of "fans" don't know about some very basic things about it. Now I’m curious though. I wonder if someone has ever altered from the judges score before..

people never noticed that all the scorecards have the same writing? :lol1: A lot of "fans" don't know about some very basic things about it.

Open Scoring is terrible. It would have ruined the incredible fight we had on Saturday. I agree. That Canelo-Trout fight took all the drama out and exposed the bias going on and rendered Trout basically unable to win without fighting a totally different fight than he wanted to even though many thought he was right in the fight the whole time.

Not a chance. Ringside is the only place to really judge a fight. You can feel the punches and hear the fighters' reactions. Judges judge a fight using more than their sense of sight, they also hear and feel what is happening. And the judges have more than just ringside seats, they are right near the canvas, they are practically in the ring with the fighters. What looks like a solid shot on film sometimes isn't that solid if you're ringside and you hear that it mostly was rolled with and there was no impact or reaction. And that's why body work is perpetually overlooked by fans, when a fighter lands a good body shot there is an unmistakable thud, and many times there's an audible grunt from the fighter getting hit. People at hoome have no idea what's going on with the body work. While I agree, having gone to many fights, the audible sound of a good punch is certainly not perceived the same through Television, the judges viewpoint is absolutley horrible. How many times have you seen judges bending sideways to get a better angle because they're blocked off by the backs of fighters or referees. They need a better viewpoint IMO. Maybe perched above the corner posts or something IDK. Just seems archaic that they judge a fight the same way as 30 years ago and we still get MANY questionable scores turned in.

Imo, judges should also score a round and then hand in that score after every round and not have a tally of their score in front of them to see. That would curb any crying of someone giving a round late to get their guy back in the fight because they know the total score they have right in front of them. They turn their score in after every round. But I get it, they get to see their tally.

Not a chance. Ringside is the only place to really judge a fight. You can feel the punches and hear the fighters' reactions. Judges judge a fight using more than their sense of sight, they also hear and feel what is happening. And the judges have more than just ringside seats, they are right near the canvas, they are practically in the ring with the fighters. What looks like a solid shot on film sometimes isn't that solid if you're ringside and you hear that it mostly was rolled with and there was no impact or reaction. And that's why body work is perpetually overlooked by fans, when a fighter lands a good body shot there is an unmistakable thud, and many times there's an audible grunt from the fighter getting hit. People at hoome have no idea what's going on with the body work.

Lets not forget that the practice of having the judges sit ringside began long before the invention of TV. Now that we have cameras, having someone judge a fight based on one viewing angle is simply retarded. They should be watching in a room somewhere, getting the benefit of multiple camera angles. The only time judges should sit ringside is on small shows with no TV.....

Press scoring? Here is something to throw out to the thread: Why not go back to the good ole days and have press scoring? Lets think about it for a moment: You got essentially 3 individuals, who act as judges, who are usually older, hardly able to see the effect of whether a punch lands, or not, hardly able to see subtlety. Whats wrong with having a section of the press score the fights? It is democracy in action. Maybe give the ref a special vote as well, they see what is happening the best.

But there is the faith that the judges will be competent. Proving negligence is very hard since there is no independent regulatory body. Maybe use an auditing firm to review that results of fights after the fact. And provide the results of their findings to governing bodies. And in the case of negligence or bias that can be proved using the data available. Judge gets fined and investigate and if there are any irregularities or conflicts of interest (gifts, money, events, dinners, relationships) linked to promoters of governing bodies then action gets taken against all involved. *cough* Cough* I am an Auditor an would gladly perform this function. There certainly is the issue of the judges along with the system per se, and there are methods to look at the judges. Audits, or any kind of peer review, scrutiny by a state sanctioned body is a good idea. The judges and the system itself both lack scrutiny and technological improvements necessary...Even football refs (American Football) who have destroyed the NFL in the past (imo) have consented to replay procedures.

That is how it is already done. After every round you can see the referee walk around to each judge and get their scorecard for that round. Then the ref takes the 3 cards to the commission table and they are the ones who transfer each round slip to the master scorecard. Once the judge turns in their card at the end of every round, they do not have access to change any previous rounds. people never noticed that all the scorecards have the same writing? :lol1:

The only way to lessen the blatant corruption is with open scoring. Would also need some kind of governing body that hold judges and other officials accountable for their actions. If a score is challenged, it would go off to an independant committee, and if they find the score to be way off, there'd be repecussions. I'm talking like the judge who scored for Canelo against Mayweather. Open Scoring is terrible. It would have ruined the incredible fight we had on Saturday.

Well to discuss the physical issue of neglegiance one has to have provisional faith that competance is a desired outcome. But there is the faith that the judges will be competent. Proving negligence is very hard since there is no independent regulatory body. Maybe use an auditing firm to review that results of fights after the fact. And provide the results of their findings to governing bodies. And in the case of negligence or bias that can be proved using the data available. Judge gets fined and investigate and if there are any irregularities or conflicts of interest (gifts, money, events, dinners, relationships) linked to promoters of governing bodies then action gets taken against all involved. *cough* Cough* I am an Auditor an would gladly perform this function.

I've been to plenty of live fights and sat ringside and IMO the view kinda blows. I prefer to sit up on an angle where I can see over the ropes for a better view of all the action in the ring. The ropes definitely obstruct your view when sitting lower down. You often see the judges ringside leaning over or trying to get a better view of the action through the ropes because they are not above where they'd be able to see everything going . Also, you cant beat being at a fight live for the excitement but watching it on TV gives you a much better close up view of the action and better view of every punch thrown. Imo, judges should also score a round and then hand in that score after every round and not have a tally of their score in front of them to see. That would curb any crying of someone giving a round late to get their guy back in the fight because they know the total score they have right in front of them. That is how it is already done. After every round you can see the referee walk around to each judge and get their scorecard for that round. Then the ref takes the 3 cards to the commission table and they are the ones who transfer each round slip to the master scorecard. Once the judge turns in their card at the end of every round, they do not have access to change any previous rounds.

I've been to plenty of live fights and sat ringside and IMO the view kinda blows. I prefer to sit up on an angle where I can see over the ropes for a better view of all the action in the ring. The ropes definitely obstruct your view when sitting lower down. You often see the judges ringside leaning over or trying to get a better view of the action through the ropes because they are not above where they'd be able to see everything going . Also, you cant beat being at a fight live for the excitement but watching it on TV gives you a much better close up view of the action and better view of every punch thrown. Imo, judges should also score a round and then hand in that score after every round and not have a tally of their score in front of them to see. That would curb any crying of someone giving a round late to get their guy back in the fight because they know the total score they have right in front of them. I like most of your points. They can also make them sit a bit higher than the ring, for clearer view. And yup they should not have a copy of their recent scores so that they won’t adjust it going to the end just because they think one fighter deserve it more.

why do the rules always have to change when the "boogyman" loses? Whatever motive you think the OP has, this is a good suggestion. A change has to be made. Bad scoring is a huge problem in boxing. Now if you're taking the position that the scoring process should be kept the same, if that's the hill you want to die on, then fine. I'll disagree with you.

nanannanaHnaH, we do not do that. We are hetero and with responsibilities! I can go for that