What Would be Your Idea to Improve Judging?

[The Big Dunn]

You had Golovkin beating Canelo and Kovalev beating Ward, lol, you can't do ****, boy.

Yeah Dramashow isn't exactly the most knowledgeable or unbiased boxing fan.

[suffolkbull3]

everybody sees things differently which is why there should b 5 judges instead of 3. each judge sits on one side of the ring and the 5th judge watches on a monitor with no commentary. 5th judge hears just crowd noise and the sound of the punches.problem solved.

[The Gambler1981]

A close round and a round a guy gets an ass whoopin in without a knockdown should not count the same.

That right there causes a big conflict because it doesn't make any sense to a casual observer that two things that should not be equal are. So fights appear one way but in reality it is easy to score a different way.

It is a big flaw in the ten point must system and since scoring a fight is very opinion based one guy is generally going to be favored over the other in close rounds (close round do not need to be evenly distributed and rarely are).

Judges need to be given a tool where they can distinguish between close rounds, clear rounds and a guy straight stomping a mud hole in another guy. I always liked the idea of half points because it allows all those things to be done fairly easily and keeps things fairly similar.

It does nothing to fix incompetence or corruption which need to be worked on also, but those are longer term issues that will take great effort to fix.

[Szef]

You had Golovkin beating Canelo and Kovalev beating Ward, lol, you can't do ****, boy.

Well both Golovkin and Kovalev beat their opponents according to the majority of writers, experts and fans so I'd say it's you who can't do ****, son.

[Citizen Koba]

Boxing fans scream and complain about judges almost daily. but you offer no solution to something you believe is so rotten. if there's rotten food in your kitchen you don't just leave it there.

offer your solution to improve judging.

the job a boxing judge has is actually scary and difficult when you think about it. they are tasked to score a winner with the naked eye. from one angle. no replays. no luxury of rescoring the fight a hundred times like fans have. compubox means sht to them since those numbers are used to just ****e up the telecast. those numbers mean nothing and are 95% inaccurate.

Imagine your first reaction to who you thought won a fight. then imagine having to stick with this decision forever. your first score. thats it. alot of you guys rewatch a fight then change the winner. judges dont have that luxury. the only way to be on equal terms with judges is to watch a fight one time. score it. and never watch it again. but we watch a fight a hundred times and dissect every second then we attack judges after weeks and months of studying a fight.

here's an idea: have the three judges sit inside booths in different spots of the building. with just a monitor and headsets. no commentary. no unofficial cards flashed on the screen. all they hear is punches and crowd noise. they have free reign to utilize slow motion however they please. now they watch the fight from every angle. they now are no different from fans at home.

this will clear up bad scoring right away. all that talk about styles preference and bias should go out the window because the only criteria that matters is clean punching. on an HD monitor with replays they have a better view of punches than ringside.



what is your solution?

Popular acclaim. The technology is available, and although their may be some challenges in avoiding wholesale rigging I actually believe that what we condescendingly describe as 'casuals' are on average (providing they at least watch fairly regularly) neither as ignorant or as incapable of scoring a fight as we sometimes make out - and with a decent sample size most outrageous scores will get balanced by the majority. There will be those who claim that the general public is hopelessly biased, but in fact it's very rare - in those instances where public polls are done - to get a final result that a majority of the self-proclaimed experts on sites such as NSB actually disagree with. It's my opinion that the kind of dudes who spend all their time on boxing forums defending or attacking a fighter or group of fighters are far more likely to be biased than members of the general public who just watch fights on the weekend for fun. And besides - if a large majority of the public genuinely believes that a guy won a fight, perhaps it's the rules that need to be looked at rather than patronising the public by telling 'em they're too ****** or ignorant to understand what they watched. It's a fight for fucks sake... it shouldn't require a fucking degree to figure out who won.

[Madison Boxing]

You had Golovkin beating Canelo and Kovalev beating Ward, lol, you can't do ****, boy.

I've never scored a fight wrong in my life.

[_Rexy_]

Thanks! I think after each fight is too much. Maybe yearly, like the major sports are moving toward.

I think yearly is too far lol. Think of a politician that does something really ****ed up in their first year in office, everyone forgets about it when it's election time haha.

and by each fight, I more meant each fight that goes to a decision...unless of course you see some real ****ed up scorecard.

[_Rexy_]

You had Golovkin beating Canelo and Kovalev beating Ward, lol, you can't do ****, boy.

wait, you had Canelo beating Golovkin??

[The Big Dunn]

I think yearly is too far lol. Think of a politician that does something really ****ed up in their first year in office, everyone forgets about it when it's election time haha.

and by each fight, I more meant each fight that goes to a decision...unless of course you see some real ****ed up scorecard.

I understand. I just want to re establish credibility among judges and eliminate corruption as best we can. I may not agree with a scorecard but that doesn't mean there is corruption like so many fans suggest.

I would never let the same judge do a fight with the same boxer more than once a year. I also wouldn't announce the judges for a fight.

[The Gambler1981]

To me reviewing guys should be at random or when needed, have judges wear go pro's or have one set up from their view and they can explain what they saw with the evidence from their view which is different from what most people see.

That camera view could be looked at before even deciding to call someone in for a review for a specific fight, cutting down on people getting hauled in frequently which would make people not want to judge fights and limit the talent pool of something not easy to do given peoples general lack of patience and attention spans (something old people have that young people do not).