How would you change boxing scoring/judging if you could change it?

[crimsonfalcon07]

https://syndication.bleacherreport.c...ating.amp.html

Here's another point: Vegas pretended back in 2011 to be using instant replays. But Barroso v Romero took place in Vegas and replays were not being used officially as in theory they were supposed to be according to this rule change. Anyone care to venture a guess as to why not?

[-MEGA-]

10-10 rounds and more 10-8 rounds.


for example:

if you had more 10-10 rounds then basically 6 out of 12 rounds would have been 10-10 for Loma vs Haney.

You would have had a couple of 10-9 rounds each way and a couple of 10-8 rounds for loma.

don’t get me wrong, Haney won by my cards. But he got beat up at the end of a fight that was pretty much even.

[Nash out]

2 judges ringside, 3 judges watching the fight in a room on TV, and in the event of a draw, a phone call to the Great Nash to ask him who won the fight. No more draws. Nash out

[Toffee]

Using tech is obvious and would be trivially easy to implement because they're already doing it on the telecast anyways for "unofficial" checks of calls. People who don't think there are robberies in controversial fights need to ask themselves why these simple things haven't been introduced and implemented.

Them not being implemented yet isn't quite the smoking gun it appears to be.

Going to video review is a slippery slope once you start down it.

Look at soccer. It's never going to be the same again. It's just as controversial as ever. There are more allegations of corruption than before.

Remember the Moloney-Franco fight? 30 minutes of video review and they still reached a disgracefully incorrect decision. The greatest example of official match fixing I've seen live.

Once you start checking things you need to protect yourself. That's why soccer matches stop for minutes to review decisions... it's not to reach the right one, it's to protect themselves from the process being questioned.

Careful what you wish for. To quote a great band... "Surely a bit of controversy is part of the game's appeal".

[The D3vil]

Well until we can just let A.I. decide fights, I say we should have a panel of 11 or so judges made up of journalists, fighters, and impartial judges

[BustedKnuckles]

1. Open scoring round by round. Maybe this would lead some fighters to just cruise to a win. But its a lot better than so many hidden card robberies.

2. Ref/judge accountability and grading or something like that, based on performance. Right now it's like professors with tenor; no matter how badly they perform, nobody gets rid of them.

3. Zero visible connections between promoters and judges. No gifts and dinners. No godfathers of promoters kids. It's an ibvious conflict of interest.

[BOJACK]

Just bring back the 15 round fights and you'll be good to go. Make sure there are no even rounds, so there will always be a clear winner. It'll make the guys fight harder, leading to more enjoyable fights.

[Roadblock]

Using tech is obvious and would be trivially easy to implement because they're already doing it on the telecast anyways for "unofficial" checks of calls. People who don't think there are robberies in controversial fights need to ask themselves why these simple things haven't been introduced and implemented.

I guess because there will be some power players that don't want these sorts of changes, its all available to them boxing just needs to get with the times

[Boxing 112]

Open scoring some people calling for. 100% no. A fighter knowing after each round would ruin boxing where fighters try to protect a lead they have or waste time go defensive etc

[-Kev-]

Get rid of Moretti and Weeks as a start...

They’ll be replaced by another Moretti and Weeks.

As long as you have the same scoring system, it doesn’t matter who you place there.