Is this how scorecards are pacted before each fight?

[_Maxi]

I've seen this pattern a lot already.

You have three judges. The A-side fighter that you want to protect and the B-side fighter.

The possibilities more or less of the real outcome are this:

A side wins wide UD
A side wins close UD/SD
Draw
B side wins close UD/SD
B side wins wide UD
And KO's, of course, in which case scorecards don't matter.

So you can cover four of the five scenarios to protect the A-side by doing this:

1. You tell the first judge, to score as many rounds as possible to the A-side, even if it doesn't make any sense. This judge will have A-side winning no matter what, so you have one in the pocket.
2. To the second judge, you tell him to give the B-side the very clear rounds he won only, and the A-side gets the rounds that he actually won plus any other "close" round.
3. To the third judge, you tell him to score the fight with honesty.

By using this model, chances are that you will always end up protecting the A-side from an embarrassment, unless he loses like 10-2 or something in which B-side might get a SD win if lucky, and at the same time you can make it look like "it was no robbery" because two of the three judges had "reasonable" scores, and only one of the judges is seen as "corrupt". With this model you can easily turn a 8-4 fight into a draw, also.

[R-Hand Southpaw]

I've seen this pattern a lot already.

You have three judges. The A-side fighter that you want to protect and the B-side fighter.

The possibilities more or less of the real outcome are this:

A side wins wide UD
A side wins close UD/SD
Draw
B side wins close UD/SD
B side wins wide UD
And KO's, of course, in which case scorecards don't matter.

So you can cover four of the five scenarios to protect the A-side by doing this:

1. You tell the first judge, to score as many rounds as possible to the A-side, even if it doesn't make any sense. This judge will have A-side winning no matter what, so you have one in the pocket.
2. To the second judge, you tell him to give the B-side the very clear rounds he won only, and the A-side gets the rounds that he actually won plus any other "close" round.
3. To the third judge, you tell him to score the fight with honesty.

By using this model, chances are that you will always end up protecting the A-side from an embarrassment, unless he loses like 10-2 or something in which B-side might get a SD win if lucky, and at the same time you can make it look like "it was no robbery" because two of the three judges had "reasonable" scores, and only one of the judges is seen as "corrupt". With this model you can easily turn a 8-4 fight into a draw, also.

I definitely agree but I would also extend it to not just the A side but also to a rising prospect/torch passing

I.e. see Lopez vs Lomachenko where the official scorecards read

119-109
117-111
116-112

This model makes a lot of sense though when you think about that 118-110 Canelo/GGG card. 115-112 Wilder/Fury. You get it.

[SilverMiles]

I was actually thinking the same thing the night of the fight. You always have that one crazy wide scorecard to divert attention from the overall bad decision rendered. So instead of the fight being called a robbery (which it was), we talk about how one judge missed a great close fight.

I also take issue with Weisfield scoring the 10th, 10-8. I have no issue with 10-8 rounds, even when a knockdown isn't scored. But that wasn't a 10-8 round. Buzzing your opponent doesn't give you an extra point especially when your opponent controlled most of that round.

[The Big Dunn]

I think the problem is everything is run by the network and promoter.

Take away network deals. Let individual networks bid on fights like 70’s and 80’s.

Then let the commission choose judges without any input or influence from the promoter. What seems to happen is certain judges get used over and over so fighters know how to fight to the judges preferred style ( usually the a side guy) while the b side guy fights his usual way .

It’s similar to other sports where guys get used to how certain refs that get all the plum assignments call a game so they adjust to them.

I would also go back to 15 rounds to eliminate the 6-6 score.

[_Maxi]

I think the problem is everything is run by the network and promoter.

Take away network deals. Let individual networks bid on fights like 70’s and 80’s.

Then let the commission choose judges without any input or influence from the promoter. What seems to happen is certain judges get used over and over so fighters know how to fight to the judges preferred style ( usually the a side guy) while the b side guy fights his usual way .

It’s similar to other sports where guys get used to how certain refs that get all the plum assignments call a game so they adjust to them.

I would also go back to 15 rounds to eliminate the 6-6 score.

IMO this has nothing to do with fighters knowing how to fight for a particular judge that likes their style. No, this has to do with corruption.

[The Big Dunn]

IMO this has nothing to do with fighters knowing how to fight for a particular judge that likes their style. No, this has to do with corruption.

Yes, some of it is corruption. I don’t think it wise to dismiss my point.

Some judges tend to work the same fighters fights so clearly they learn what the judges tend to favor. I also think promoters want judges they are familiar with and have a good relationship with.