Those damn scorecards yet again. Judges need to have consequences.

[Johnny2x2x]

Where they that bad?

I had it 116-112 Lopez.

I had it 117-111, but 118-110 or 116-112 were fine. 115-113 is a really bad card, but it’s not a robbery or anything. Taylor won 3 rounds, and then there were another round or two close enough they giving them to Taylor isn’t crazy.

shows the importance of fighting the 12th. Teo had a habit of pouring it on in the 12th and that’s why he won and we’re not talking about some robbery.

[OnePunch]

Bottom line is that judging a fight from the apron provides one of the worst views in the arena, Judges should be sequestered in a room somewhere with the tv feed and no audio, so they cannot be influenced by commentary or crowd noise.

[TintaBoricua]

Judges have a tendency to mean regress.
For example, if Fighter A is dominating a fight and winning rounds; then does enough to win a subsequent round, but in less dominating fashion, they will give that round to Fighter B.

I think this happens for a couple of reasons. One is that Fighter A’s dominance has skewed the perspective. Fighter B’s relative success is seen as being greater than it is, because he is relatively better than previous rounds. This could have been Teo in some middle rounds.

Additionally, judges benefit from having a close scorecard. That way, if they are clearly wrong on who shouldve won, they can argue that at least they were close. Having a close to balanced scorecard make sense for job security of a judge.

There should be more oversite, and judges should be judging specific rounds in a vacuum, not as a part of whole.

This right here is it and I’m glad somebody finally said it. Emanuel Steward used to talk about this back when he was still commentating fights. Sympathy rounds he’d call them. Fighter A is so dominant that if fighter b does a smidge better (in comparison to himself in other rounds) judges might give him that round, because additionally they wanna have some leeway to be in the general consensus of whatever the score might be and not be the odd man out if it’s a close fight and have it wide…cause people tend to unjustifiably crucify a judge for having a scorecard that’s “too wide” when in fact the accuser only has it one round tighter. It IS a form of job security in a sense. You have to be dominant every which way if you truly wanna score a shutout…think Winky-Tito Trinidad or Canelo-Chavez Jr.

Chenko-Munguia wasn’t a robbery. I thought Chenko did enough but the scorecards were tight and as much as it kills me to admit it, Munguia turned it on down the stretch. I still think he’s overrated as hell but he stayed in there when it looked like he was on the verge of imploding in the fifth.

If boxing fans were truly, genuinely, unequivocally worried about scoring and wanted to improve scoring, they would have done so a long time ago.

Alternatives:

Implement Olympic scoring-score punches strictly. The drawback is that it favors shoeshiners and quantity, not quality of the punches.

Add a 13th round in championship fights-less likelihood of an even split.

5 judges as opposed to 3.

It looks and sounds ridiculous but I don’t mind the current scoring system, it’s archaic but I’m not up in arms like 90% of people on here every time there’s a close fight and the fighter they’re rooting for is on the bad end of a decision.

It’s a matter of **** or get off the pot. People can’t be complaining about the scoring system and then be unwilling to implement changes.

It’s like complaining about a job you hate and yet staying there anyway. Accept it for what it is or rally and try to get it overhauled.

I could go on but last night was fun. I predicted Teo and Chenko would win and almost got it……almost.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I had it 117-111, but 118-110 or 116-112 were fine. 115-113 is a really bad card, but it’s not a robbery or anything. Taylor won 3 rounds, and then there were another round or two close enough they giving them to Taylor isn’t crazy.

shows the importance of fighting the 12th. Teo had a habit of pouring it on in the 12th and that’s why he won and we’re not talking about some robbery.

I think 118-110 is just as bad as 115-113. That was a competitive fight. Teofimo was the clear winner but there were several close rounds. 116-112, 117-111 are about right I think.

[The Big Dunn]

Judges have a tendency to mean regress.
For example, if Fighter A is dominating a fight and winning rounds; then does enough to win a subsequent round, but in less dominating fashion, they will give that round to Fighter B.

I think this happens for a couple of reasons. One is that Fighter A’s dominance has skewed the perspective. Fighter B’s relative success is seen as being greater than it is, because he is relatively better than previous rounds. This could have been Teo in some middle rounds.

Additionally, judges benefit from having a close scorecard. That way, if they are clearly wrong on who shouldve won, they can argue that at least they were close. Having a close to balanced scorecard make sense for job security of a judge.

There should be more oversite, and judges should be judging specific rounds in a vacuum, not as a part of whole.

Liked this post a lot dude. Made me think.

[buddyr]

But it didn't happen. Right man won. Round by round didn't reflect Lopez's overall dominance. But round by round is how it's scored.

the right man winning isn't enough. Floyd shut out Canelo 12-0 and a CJ Ross gave canelo 6 rounds. Bivol beat Canelo 10-2, at worst 9-3, and it was 7-5 across the board. None of these fights, including Taylor vs Lopez, were hard to score. They were one-sided azz whippings. Not close rounds, but one sided events.

[buddyr]

Bottom line is that judging a fight from the apron provides one of the worst views in the arena, Judges should be sequestered in a room somewhere with the tv feed and no audio, so they cannot be influenced by commentary or crowd noise.

no it's not. Because I've watched fights from the crowd, the apron, and on tv. When I was fighting amateur, before my fights, I'd be in the corner with my coach enjoying the matches. It's really the best seat in the house. Judges get it wrong because they are corrupt. It's simple as that. You are right at the ring literally a few feet from the action. If you can't see or understand what's going on from that distance, then you don't need to be a judge.

[crimsonfalcon07]

The judges seats might prevent them from seeing whether the ref called a KD correctly etc, but frankly, the ref has too much power. They could use replays and reviews but don't even give the option. There's no real mechanism for bad calls and decisions to get overturned, and no clear penalties for bad judging or mechanism to reduce it. The fact that boxing is still deliberately obtuse and antiquated should tell you something.

I'm quite positive that the judges will be on the take in the Spence fight. Crawford better get a stoppage because he's not winning on points.

[Boxfan83]

I scored the fight on the live thread, I had it 9-3 Lopez but there were people talking sh.t that it was closer.

If you dont have a dog in the race, boxing is easier to score.

[ELPacman]

Let's have it mandatory that the judges have to attend the post fight press conferences and explain their card if they can't make them do it in the ring Live on the spot. Perhaps sounding like a total idiot to millions of viewers is enough for them to quit judging.