Comments Thread For: World Boxing Super Series - Explaining 4th Judge To Avoid Draws

[7NN]

The only way the 4th judge would be used is in the case of a split draw correct? With a majority or unanimous draw where 2 or 3 judges score the fight a draw, even with a 4th judge you can't have a majority going towards one fighter because 2/4 or 3/4 of the cards would be even anyway.

If all 4 judges score draw, then the one who won last round- wins. But again, even with that there is small posibility of draw.

[angkag]

The only way the 4th judge would be used is in the case of a split draw correct? With a majority or unanimous draw where 2 or 3 judges score the fight a draw, even with a 4th judge you can't have a majority going towards one fighter because 2/4 or 3/4 of the cards would be even anyway.

The way the article is written, it suggests that any type of official draw from the first three results and it goes to the 4th judge, so majority, split or unanimous draw.

Then when it says:

If two of the now four judges score the bout in favour of one Boxer A, and at least one of the other two of the four judges score the bout a draw, such result shall be considered that Boxer A shall advance to the next round of the tournament.

Only way this can happen is:
(1) one of the first three judges gave it to A, while the other two had it a draw (in which case goes to 4th judge), OR
(2) one of first two judges gives it to A, one has it a draw, and one gives it to B (in which case goes to 4th judge)

Then this assumes the 4th judge gives it to A, so A now has two votes and the rest don't matter any more (if the other two gave it to B then it wouldn't have gone to the 4th judge in the first place as B would have won a majority decision from the first 3 judges).

Would have thought that if one of the original three judges goes for A while the other two give it a draw, they would use the one vote for A as the deciding factor (for the tournament purposes only) instead of going to the 4th judge. So only going to the 4th judge in the event of a unanimous draw (all 3 judges give it a draw) or Split draw (one A, one draw, one B).

Note: this means 2 votes A and 2 votes draw isn't considered a draw any more, and the 2 votes for A carries

Also that if you end up with 1 vote A and 3 votes draw, that the 4th judge wasn't needed. So correction, op correct that 4th judge only matters if a split or majority draw.

Weird.

[angkag]

If all 4 judges score draw, then the one who won last round- wins. But again, even with that there is small posibility of draw.

I think OP was pointing out that the article kind of assumes there was 1 vote for A from the original 3 judges, and the article suggests that once a boxer gets two votes, he is then considered the winner.

But if its a unanimous draw from the first three, then Boxer A can only get one vote (the 4th one), so the result remains a majority draw, so the 4th judge doesn't matter as it can't change the result.

But if 2 judges give it to A, and 2 give it a draw (so 2 of original 3 gave it a draw and one gave it to A), its not deemed a majority draw any more and A gets the W, even though its 2-2.

Still seems odd that if it were a majority draw they wouldn't take the lone vote for one of the boxers and declare him the winner just for the purpose of the tournament.

[daggum]

i think that if they fight to a draw ward should win

[nycsmooth]

I don't believe this can work in a can also open the door for corruption maybe they could try on rounds like 13 Rounds as they did in the old days rare you would see a draw after 15 rounds...

[olivetree66]

there wasn't a 4th judge in the super 6...

[kilojay505]

ive always been a fan of the Marquess of Queensberry Rules.

[elfag]

Far as I can tell the fight officially goes on record as the result from the 3 judges, which keeps it within WBC rules. So, for example, if the three judges score it a draw, it will show up in boxrec as a D on each boxers record.

The 4th judge only comes into play as the tournament needs someone declared as the winner, so, in the case of a draw, the 4th judges card can be used to determine who goes forward in the competition. Doesn't affect the 'official' result from the first 3 judges.

If all 4 have a draw, then for purposes of the tournament only again the count-back is used.

WBC doesnt decide how many judges, the commission does. All WBC does is manage their trinkets.

[knotty150]

Seems like a lot of complicated fuss for something which isn't a problem.

Draws are pretty rare, why don't they invest all this added effort into further assurances of anti-bribery? Independant investigations for controversial decisions, certified judges and referees with no history of dodgy decisions etc. All we get right now is the obviously corrupt governing bodies publicly turning a blind eye to anything controversial.

What we need here is for the WBSS to instigate some accountability for bad decisions, forget this useless 4th judge trash.

[b Murphington]

I always wondered why fights went from 15 to 12 and not another odd number like 13. Seems that would help reduce draws without an additional judge. Maybe i'm missing something.

You're right. In amateurs it's 3 rounds and I don't think they have draws at all. It would help.