5 or 7 Judges Per TitleFight

[#1Assassin]

we dont need more judges, we need better judges.

if judges are allowed to keep doing a god awful job only to get paid regardless and keep getting work it doesnt matter if there are 3, 5, 7 or 39 judges scoring the fight. all that will do is make ppl overlook poor scorecards even more.

the athletic commissions should sit down with judges who leave questionable scorecards and make them explain themselfs. if a scorecard is inexplicable (like some u mentioned) the judge in question who was clearly either incompetent or bribed should be fired on the spot, have his pay check withdrawn and be banned from the sport as a result.

[johnm is...]

Solid idea.

On a different note. There was nothing "iffy" about the Hopkins/Pascal 2 decision.

[Who are you?]

Solid idea.

Indeed! Hopefully it will happen.

I am honestly so angry at bad decisions in recent times.

[jmasta]

How would having the same seven people judge all title fights, be better? One promoter would probably buy them all off. The corruption in boxing is huge, thus making this, a terrible idea.

[Medved]

We need to have 5 Judges that are NEUTRAL, not belonging to anyone. Take the top industry people and have them watch 2000 fights and let them mark each round. Select the 4 highest people who get it "right". and the 5th judge would be a "internet" judge where fans vote for each round as it happens. Make some system where the bottom peoples votes arent counted. ie: if theres a round and its a CLEAR round for Fighter A and 10k people voted for Fighter B then ban all those people from voting ever again.

We need new changes, a big commitee of people who actually know what they are doing. make strict testing by having them watch tons of fights and giving their score cards and take the best of the crop and make em judges and if they screw up 1 fight on purpose get rid of them.

But it will never happen, theres always going to be 90 year old white senile tards who have no idea what they are doing.

[Larry the boss]

promoters would just have to spend more money paying off refs

[daggum]

the promoter of the event pays the judges so right there that's a big red flag. if they play ball and score the fight for their guy then they will get more high profile jobs down the road. the entire system is corrupt. we need judges who aren't affiliated with promoters or organizations scoring the fight from a secluded area so they won't be influenced by the crowd. we also need some sort of oversight and if a judge screws up he gets demoted/fired not promoted/hired which is what happens now. also hopkins/pascal 2 was not even close so you are demoted!

[Frogs!]

Bernard Hopkins W 12 Jean Pascal
(I thought the fight was a draw)

sorry bro but your decent idea is tarnished by this very biased view.

if it wasn't clear to you that bhop won the rematch then the first course of action is to make sure judges like yourself don't get to judge fights.

[Phenom]

only thing that would do is we would have a lot less controversial UD wins and a lot more controversial Majority wins and split decisions

[welcometosaigon]

We need to have 5 Judges that are NEUTRAL, not belonging to anyone. Take the top industry people and have them watch 2000 fights and let them mark each round. Select the 4 highest people who get it "right". and the 5th judge would be a "internet" judge where fans vote for each round as it happens. Make some system where the bottom peoples votes arent counted. ie: if theres a round and its a CLEAR round for Fighter A and 10k people voted for Fighter B then ban all those people from voting ever again.

We need new changes, a big commitee of people who actually know what they are doing. make strict testing by having them watch tons of fights and giving their score cards and take the best of the crop and make em judges and if they screw up 1 fight on purpose get rid of them.

But it will never happen, theres always going to be 90 year old white senile tards who have no idea what they are doing.

This is the single worst idea I have ever heard.