How would you fix corrupt judging?

[DondiNeverLeft]

Bigger bribes

[lefthook2daliva]

Personally I think judges at the highest level should be subject to random polygraph testing. I know that sounds far-fetched but there is alot of money on the line when it comes to boxing matches at the highest level, so why not? I think alot of judges would think twice before accepting bribes, hell cops and federal agents are subject to lie detector test for that reason, so why not?

This is another one of those things where the question is: fine, what do you replace it with?

I think the only thing you can do is monitor and enforce.

Catch a few in the act and make examples of them.

[puga]

humiliate them on nat tv and fire em for life.. no second chances, that'd fix the problem permannently and would set very nigh standards...

[twrx]

I like the suspension idea or demote them to under card judging. Hire former refs to judge. Let them watchin a silent box with hd monitor with no sound to avoid crowd or commentator bias . And it allows the to watch some of the round highlights. Or I tried a little dial like a shower hot or coldbut with fighters names some one lands a hard shot move the dial to their side he keeps pressing landing keep moving it deeper to that side. And vice versa score round by were knob ends lol

[illmaticfighter]

hell here something not new open scoring like fnc rounds 4 n 8 i think itll make a world of difference.

[mathed]

Let the fans vote on the winner and compare that to the judges' scores. If one judge is way in the wrong, let the fans vote on whether the boxer gets to punch the judge in the face or not. Make all the judges sign a contract stating they acknowledge and accept that aspect as part of compensation. That'll clean it up real quick.

[Sammy2g3]

I'd say keep it the way it is but have the judges explain their scores. In addition, I'd give a lesson on scoring fights to the public. Letting the fans vote is a terrible idea. Most fans don't know how to score a fight.

Judges get a lot of criticism, but they are sitting ringside scoring the fight. People use the term "robbery" too often. Fighter A could win 4 rounds big and fighter B could win 7 out of the 8 other rounds really close and the media and the boxing public would scream robbery.

Maybe they need to change the way fights are scored because people forget fights are scored round by round. So I'd have judges give an analysis on every single round they score.

People often confuse a close fight with a robbery.

[Jam Jars]

Let the fans vote on the winner and compare that to the judges' scores. If one judge is way in the wrong, let the fans vote on whether the boxer gets to punch the judge in the face or not. Make all the judges sign a contract stating they acknowledge and accept that aspect as part of compensation. That'll clean it up real quick.

It wouldn't because people like me would score the fight wrong just to see the judge get punched in the face.

[pimpgoz]

Personally I think judges at the highest level should be subject to random polygraph testing. I know that sounds far-fetched but there is alot of money on the line when it comes to boxing matches at the highest level, so why not? I think alot of judges would think twice before accepting bribes, hell cops and federal agents are subject to lie detector test for that reason, so why not?

Easy:

Have the judges watch the fight on a personal video monitor with headphones and NO Commentary but sound coming from the mic hanging above the ring so they can not only see but hear the shots that land cleanly. most people who watch the fights on tv can all agree on what they see and without commentary you should be able to score it fairly unless you are corrupt.

[LA_2_Vegas]

Assuming we keep the current structure of boxing and how things are done then a start might be to:

1. Take the human element out of how judges are chosen.

For championship fights, it needs to be a double-blind lottery with a list of "acceptable" judges from the sanctioning bodies that has been expanded, perhaps a list made up by a statistical program that can control for a variety of variables as to eliminate bias. (Unfortunately, this might not be possible since I don't think anybody has been keeping a database of fan and expert scores for the last 20 years to compare it to so that there could be some consensus of how to spot a "good judge.")

....all theoretical but if we worked out the details we could have a double-blind lottery where nobody on either side knows who will be drawn.

The promoters pay the commission, who pay the judges. The sanctioning bodies only give a short list of approved officials to the commission to chose from...the list presented by the sanctioning body may or may not (wink-wink) have already been pre-approved by the promoter who can pull the plug on the event at any time.

There's too much going on in that scenario... I think the approach should be to remove humans in the selection process as much as possible.

2. Limit the time between when the lottery takes place and fight time. I know they might need time to travel depending on where they are from but this can be worked around, but no use to expand upon here. Most of the time, judges are not flown in from out of town so in the cases that judges are local the lottery could literally be done 30 minutes before hand.