Comments Thread For: The Hidden Prejudices in Boxing Judging

[Coverdale]

I've been saying this forever. Why not hold a judge with a ridiculous scorecard accountable and put him on the mic immediately to let the fans everywhere understand how he can up with his crazy scorecard. You will immediately know then and there how legit that judge is. Based on his dumb looking face answer. Not only will the face tell a tale, but his actual answer. If he cooks up the dumbest reason why he thinks fighter B won it 117 to 109 or some other crazy score, you simply never ever invite that HUMAN back to judge a boxing fight ever again. Not everyone are good at their jobs and folks unfortunately get fired for a reason. Why not treat judges the same way?

Then people will apply their own biases by judging the person by how they speak and present. They're boxing judges, not public speakers.

[ELPacman]

Then people will apply their own biases by judging the person by how they speak and present. They're boxing judges, not public speakers.

Then they need to add that to the job requirements. Similar to the judges on America's Got Talent and those type of shows where they speak about why they're voting or in boxing's case, why they gave the score that they did.

If you're telling me, they don't need that part because they're just highly qualified individuals that only know how to judge a fight, yet then they give horrendous scores that nobody else on the planet witnessed, are they highly qualified?

I know judging is a tough job in itself, even if you're a GOOD judge, but in general, their scores are reflective of what the audience saw. Even if the fight was razor thin and you can give it to either guy, the score should look close then. Though if the fight was razor thin by everyone's eyes and you have one judge giving a shutout to one guy, that's not a quality judge I'd say...

[Smash]

I don't understand this position, why not just score the fight 120 - 108 every time in that case? They have to hand in their scorecard at the end of each round, so are you suggesting they score the obvious ones to the "B-side" but then remember to score enough closer ones to the "A-side"?

You conspiracists are so confident with your outpourings on this subject you should be able to explain in greater detail what's going on here.

i dont have time to explain it should be clear what i wrote

[CPNUTKnockoutFreshMart]

Then they need to add that to the job requirements. Similar to the judges on America's Got Talent and those type of shows where they speak about why they're voting or in boxing's case, why they gave the score that they did.

If you're telling me, they don't need that part because they're just highly qualified individuals that only know how to judge a fight, yet then they give horrendous scores that nobody else on the planet witnessed, are they highly qualified?

I know judging is a tough job in itself, even if you're a GOOD judge, but in general, their scores are reflective of what the audience saw. Even if the fight was razor thin and you can give it to either guy, the score should look close then. Though if the fight was razor thin by everyone's eyes and you have one judge giving a shutout to one guy, that's not a quality judge I'd say...

You can have a fight with all extremely close rounds but the same guy winning every single one of them. That's just how it shakes out , numerically it can look like it was a wipe out but in fact it was a really close fight. Just because the fight was close doesn't necessarily mean that the scores have to be close. The Ball / Goodman fight iis a good example of that. The rounds were all pretty close but Ball won 8 of those close rounds, so they score makes it look like a wipeout when the action was actually really close . So people will say " the judges screwed up , it was a close fight " when you can actually have a close fight even if one guy wins every round .
Understand what I'm saying ? Let me know, if not I can find some other way to explain it.

[ELPacman]

You can have a fight with all extremely close rounds but the same guy winning every single one of them. That's just how it shakes out , numerically it can look like it was a wipe out but in fact it was a really close fight. Just because the fight was close doesn't necessarily mean that the scores have to be close. The Ball / Goodman fight iis a good example of that. The rounds were all pretty close but Ball won 8 of those close rounds, so they score makes it look like a wipeout when the action was actually really close . So people will say " the judges screwed up , it was a close fight " when you can actually have a close fight even if one guy wins every round .
Understand what I'm saying ? Let me know, if not I can find some other way to explain it.

I can see how that can make sense. Okay, well how about a fight that is clearly for 1 guy and they gave it to the other. Let's at least crucify those.