If the Judges HAD to Answer for Controversial Decisions...

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I saw this brought up the other day and think it's a great idea. After a controversial call by a referee, often times the commentators will interview the referee about the call. Why not the judges?

There seems to be an unsaid rule that the judges are a group that will not be touched, heard or often times even seen. I do like it when they actually post their pictures on the screen rather than just naming them. Further more, after a close, controversial fight, I think they should be interviewed to see why they scored the way they did. In fact, they ought to be put on the screen regularly and won't be able to hide as easily. This could definitely clear up some crazy scoring, even if it still went on.

[Scipio2009]

I saw this brought up the other day and think it's a great idea. After a controversial call by a referee, often times the commentators will interview the referee about the call. Why not the judges?

There seems to be an unsaid rule that the judges are a group that will not be touched, heard or often times even seen. I do like it when they actually post their pictures on the screen rather than just naming them. Further more, after a close, controversial fight, I think they should be interviewed to see why they scored the way they did. In fact, they ought to be put on the screen regularly and won't be able to hide as easily. This could definitely clear up some crazy scoring, even if it still went on.

Judging is quite subjective, which is why judges largely get left alone.

Case in point, look at the Kovalev-Ward fight; Rds 1 and 2 were clearly for Kovalev, 3 and 4 were close (though likely with the lean towards Kovalev), but every rounds from that point on saw Ward figuring out range, imposing his will, saw Kovalev's activity start to slide, and were fought in parameters that largely matched the type of fight that Andre Ward wanted.

A judge could come on the mic point out something similar in how they scored that fight, and anything the judge could possibly say wouldn't undue any of the hurt feelings from the folks who want to insist that Kovalev was robbed.

Why would any judge or commission want their officials to be put through that exhibition, knowing that nothing that the judge could say would change any of the minds of the folks with hurt feelings?

The referee interview has been selectively utilized, and even those, when you look back on it, rarely end up with the folks who thought the call was controversial, seeing the referees point of view and changing their feelings.

Fights are going to be close, especially in evenly-matched fights (Frampton-Santa Cruz, Thurman-Porter, Jack-Degale, Kovalev-Ward, Degale-Dirrell, etc); no amount of attempted shaming of a judge is going to change that.

Beyond that, what's your understanding of "crazy scoring", anyway? If one fighter clearly wins 3 rounds, the other fighter wins 4 round, and 5 rounds are left in the middle (with it not really being clear that either guy won the round), the resultant final scores could be wildly varied (8-4, Fighter A, to 3-9 Fighter B); judges, stylistically recognize certain aspects of the fight, and that style point will likely color the way they lean for those truly tossup rounds.

[-PBP-]

I saw this brought up the other day and think it's a great idea. After a controversial call by a referee, often times the commentators will interview the referee about the call. Why not the judges?

There seems to be an unsaid rule that the judges are a group that will not be touched, heard or often times even seen. I do like it when they actually post their pictures on the screen rather than just naming them. Further more, after a close, controversial fight, I think they should be interviewed to see why they scored the way they did. In fact, they ought to be put on the screen regularly and won't be able to hide as easily. This could definitely clear up some crazy scoring, even if it still went on.

Duane Ford did an interview after Pacquiao/Bradley. I don't think it really had much of an impact on anything.

What it did show, is that pre-fight knowledge of a fighters style and capabilities can bias the scoring. He seemed to penalize Pacquiao for not being the wreckless murderer that he was used to seeing.

[The Big Dunn]

Not a bad idea. I would add that judges should be seated on the same side of the ring so they get the same perspective. I also think age is an issue.

[Jewish-Reptile]

I saw this brought up the other day and think it's a great idea. After a controversial call by a referee, often times the commentators will interview the referee about the call. Why not the judges?

There seems to be an unsaid rule that the judges are a group that will not be touched, heard or often times even seen. I do like it when they actually post their pictures on the screen rather than just naming them. Further more, after a close, controversial fight, I think they should be interviewed to see why they scored the way they did. In fact, they ought to be put on the screen regularly and won't be able to hide as easily. This could definitely clear up some crazy scoring, even if it still went on.

Controversial to who, HBO, Showtime and Sky boxing analysts on the night, scribes for ESPN clearing blinded by biases. All these dudes genuinely know the art of scoring a boxing match, on NSB you got fans thinking work rate, punches thrown and compubox are integral and who's determined the winner.

I'm quite happy with the officials we have in the sport, and I find there to be less corruption in the US than places like the UK.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Judging is quite subjective, which is why judges largely get left alone.

Case in point, look at the Kovalev-Ward fight; Rds 1 and 2 were clearly for Kovalev, 3 and 4 were close (though likely with the lean towards Kovalev), but every rounds from that point on saw Ward figuring out range, imposing his will, saw Kovalev's activity start to slide, and were fought in parameters that largely matched the type of fight that Andre Ward wanted.

A judge could come on the mic point out something similar in how they scored that fight, and anything the judge could possibly say wouldn't undue any of the hurt feelings from the folks who want to insist that Kovalev was robbed.

Why would any judge or commission want their officials to be put through that exhibition, knowing that nothing that the judge could say would change any of the minds of the folks with hurt feelings?

The referee interview has been selectively utilized, and even those, when you look back on it, rarely end up with the folks who thought the call was controversial, seeing the referees point of view and changing their feelings.

Fights are going to be close, especially in evenly-matched fights (Frampton-Santa Cruz, Thurman-Porter, Jack-Degale, Kovalev-Ward, Degale-Dirrell, etc); no amount of attempted shaming of a judge is going to change that.

Beyond that, what's your understanding of "crazy scoring", anyway? If one fighter clearly wins 3 rounds, the other fighter wins 4 round, and 5 rounds are left in the middle (with it not really being clear that either guy won the round), the resultant final scores could be wildly varied (8-4, Fighter A, to 3-9 Fighter B); judges, stylistically recognize certain aspects of the fight, and that style point will likely color the way they lean for those truly tossup rounds.

You're discussing this as if every robbery were a close fight. What about Darleys Perez-Maurice Hooker? You're telling me the judges didn't owe fans an explanation?

[Tony Trick-Pony]

[QUOTE=-PBP-;17384917]Duane Ford did an interview after Pacquiao/Bradley. I don't think it really had much of an impact on anything.

What it did show, is that pre-fight knowledge of a fighters style and capabilities can bias the scoring. He seemed to penalize Pacquiao for not being the wreckless murderer that he was used to seeing.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying it DID have an impact on your thinking at least? I don't know why people fight transparency. I'm not saying every bad decision will get overturned but the judges having to own up to it on TV in front of millions of people could cause some sway so that they don't have to look like fools.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Not a bad idea. I would add that judges should be seated on the same side of the ring so they get the same perspective. I also think age is an issue.

I definitely agree, there. I assume they get their eyes regularly checked, but sometimes that doesn't seem to be the case.

[KillaCamNZ]

It won't fix the issue. Bottom line is, there's millions upon millions of dollars that hinge on what three old men think they see. Them talking about it afterwards isn't even an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff - it's a paramedics skeleton.

I haven't even touched on the corruption aspect either.

[anonymous2.0]

a long time ago I heard an idea of using 5 judges, then comparing the scores and throwing the 2 widest margins scores out