What Would be Your Idea to Improve Judging?

[Banko Villas]

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.

It's not a matter of majority or minority. It's a matter of logic or lack or logic. It wouldn't be special to be a genius if the majority of people weren't completely ******ed or, at best, extremely biased. Objectively speaking, while really analyzing each round with an open mind, there can't be any doubt.

Tell me the rounds you scored for Kovalev.
Tell me the rounds you scored for Golovkin.
We can go through each round, count the significant punches (**** compubox), evaluate the damage done, take closer looks at who has interpreted what wrong.

Golovkin was zombie-walking around, unable to do any significant damage to Canelo, while Canelo fought very well defensively and landed a lot of counter punches cleanly. Golovkin was very hesitant with taking any chances and when Canelo was on the ropes, Golovkin would look clueless until Canelo started hitting him (and still look clueless after that, as his own counter punches weren't even landing). Golovkin was chasing Canelo, yes, but it's kinda like how to mouse chased the trap... Golovkin took the majority of significant shots, while only walking around, jabbing and missing with his power punches. I hate that fat ginger as much as the next guy does, but fair is fair and he beat Golovkin.

[_Rexy_]

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.

Didn't California use a 5-3-1 points system that ended up costing someone a title because he won the majority of the rounds, but still lost the fight?

the ten point must system isn't perfect, but it's the best we have right now. I like that they'll give a 10-8 on an ass whopping even if there is no knockdown. i do agree with you on finding a middle ground on very close rounds though. Half points isn't a bad idea, there should be a difference in a close round and a tie round IMO.

I saw someone else suggest 5 judges. that's how they do it in the olympics, and ask RJJ or Mayweather Jr. how well that works.

I'd love to see more actual punishment for clinching up though. it's one of the reasons I prefer watching old matches to new ones a lot of the times.

[_Rexy_]

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.

Oh I completely agree with the first sentence, I'm more likely to blame incompetence over corruption, It's not the 1930's; but it would depend on who the fighters are in the match, An example would be some of Ali's wins that he was basically gifted because he was Muhammad Ali.

[The Gambler1981]

Didn't California use a 5-3-1 points system that ended up costing someone a title because he won the majority of the rounds, but still lost the fight?

the ten point must system isn't perfect, but it's the best we have right now. I like that they'll give a 10-8 on an ass whopping even if there is no knockdown. i do agree with you on finding a middle ground on very close rounds though. Half points isn't a bad idea, there should be a difference in a close round and a tie round IMO.

I saw someone else suggest 5 judges. that's how they do it in the olympics, and ask RJJ or Mayweather Jr. how well that works.

I'd love to see more actual punishment for clinching up though. it's one of the reasons I prefer watching old matches to new ones a lot of the times.

Judges never give 10-8 rounds, they could more frequently but they don't like to because it causes scoring to get out of hand quickly if you give them out freely. If you have .5s then a close round a 10/9.5 and then a guy whomps the other the next round and gets a 10/8.5 so he is a round up after those two rounds which is much more logical while the other guy is only 1 round behind still rather than 2 if you did an even round and a 10/8 (judges hate doing either of those things so giving them a different way seems needed) or the fight being even at that point which makes no sense.

.5s is the way to go and is the easiest fix I have heard. It also makes taking away stuff for punishments easier because .5 for a punishment effects the score less while still effecting it, allowing for easier punishment for "minor" fouls.

[chrisJS]

Bigger consequences for bad cards. There should be a panel that reviews all the cards (even with the fights that end in KO's) and the cards that are out of whack the judge has to explain themselves and bad scores should result in loss of pay or suspension (with loss of pay). The panel should include multiple press members and not just people hired by the commission.

I guess the odd score that's off by a point or two once or twice isn't grounds for loss of pay but if every other card you do is off even by a small margin and it's multiple times you've got to go. Obviously an Adelaide Byrd scorecard and your out for a long time. A few of those and your done for good. Sounds strict but it would improve the cards. Way too many terrible cards are produced and ruin everybody's hard work. There's always been bad cards in Boxing but it does seem it's more accepted now than ever and easier to predict them too. I used to think having 5 judges would improve but I'm not so sure. I think the problem lies deeper than that.

Should try and avoid the same judge judging the same fighter at all costs. It can't be that hard to find three judges and none have seen the fighter. Look at Byrd in the Canelo-GGG fight and watch her. All she is doing is looking at Canelo and paying attention only to one of the two fighters. I'm sure there's multiple judges like some of the Marquez-Pacquaio judges that did the exact same thing. They are familiar with and like that style so they watch just that one fighter and unless he gets hurt in the round they give him the round. So even the close-ish rounds where their fighter lost they have given it to them.

[Lomadeaux]

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

You're a complete idiot.

[_Rexy_]

Judges never give 10-8 rounds, they could more frequently but they don't like to because it causes scoring to get out of hand quickly if you give them out freely. If you have .5s then a close round a 10/9.5 and then a guy whomps the other the next round and gets a 10/8.5 so he is a round up after those two rounds which is much more logical while the other guy is only 1 round behind still rather than 2 if you did an even round and a 10/8 (judges hate doing either of those things so giving them a different way seems needed) or the fight being even at that point which makes no sense.

.5s is the way to go and is the easiest fix I have heard. It also makes taking away stuff for punishments easier because .5 for a punishment effects the score less while still effecting it, allowing for easier punishment for "minor" fouls.

only problem with your system is that I don't trust judges to be able to add and do fractions haha,

when I score at home, I'll give 10-8 rounds, but not frequently, it has to be a lopsided round. the .5 for punishment is good too, because a dude shouldn't get warned 5 times for headbutting before a point is deducted. If it's an intentional butt, deduct the damn point.

Oh, and in the event of a draw, why not bring back Ref scoring? They're the ones that are the closest to the action and see everything (unless it's Ward/Kovalev II)

[Szef]

It's not a matter of majority or minority. It's a matter of logic or lack or logic. It wouldn't be special to be a genius if the majority of people weren't completely ******ed or, at best, extremely biased. Objectively speaking, while really analyzing each round with an open mind, there can't be any doubt.

Tell me the rounds you scored for Kovalev.
Tell me the rounds you scored for Golovkin.
We can go through each round, count the significant punches (**** compubox), evaluate the damage done, take closer looks at who has interpreted what wrong.

Golovkin was zombie-walking around, unable to do any significant damage to Canelo, while Canelo fought very well defensively and landed a lot of counter punches cleanly. Golovkin was very hesitant with taking any chances and when Canelo was on the ropes, Golovkin would look clueless until Canelo started hitting him (and still look clueless after that, as his own counter punches weren't even landing). Golovkin was chasing Canelo, yes, but it's kinda like how to mouse chased the trap... Golovkin took the majority of significant shots, while only walking around, jabbing and missing with his power punches. I hate that fat ginger as much as the next guy does, but fair is fair and he beat Golovkin.

It is indeed a matter of logic and based on your response you lack of it.

If the vast majority of people say you're wrong and you say you're right there's a big chance you are indeed wrong.

Knowing the rules of boxing and how to score a fight and scoring the fight based on that knowledge isn't what I call being biased. It's just common sense.

Why would the experts and writers who scored the fights for GGG and Kovalev were biased anyway? Were they all Russian/Kazakh? Were they all a part of some sort of conspiracy against the cash cow Canelo and arguably P4P #1 (not in my book doe) Ward? It just doesn't make sense why would experts whom most of are Americans were biased against an American and a Mexican with huge US fanbase.

Maybe they all like offensive fighters and couldn't appreciate the sweet science Ward and Canelo displayed?

And by sweet science I mean hitting your opponent with a few flashy shots and then backtracking for the rest of the round and getting jabbed and bossed around the ring in the process (Canelo), and getting dropped, doing virtually fck all for 5 out of the 6 first rounds, clinching and throwing pitty pat body shots and nothing else (Ward).

Maybe, just maybe the majority is right and you, the self proclaimed misunderstood rebel, are wrong.

[The Gambler1981]

only problem with your system is that I don't trust judges to be able to add and do fractions haha,

when I score at home, I'll give 10-8 rounds, but not frequently, it has to be a lopsided round. the .5 for punishment is good too, because a dude shouldn't get warned 5 times for headbutting before a point is deducted. If it's an intentional butt, deduct the damn point.

Oh, and in the event of a draw, why not bring back Ref scoring? They're the ones that are the closest to the action and see everything (unless it's Ward/Kovalev II)

Judges like never give 10-8 rounds that don't include a knockdown or penalty, I don't remember seeing that last scorecard it happened on, you might be more likely to spot a Sasquatch than see a 10-8 round without a knockdown scored (or a point deduction of some manner). SO to me that needs to change and if giving 2 points for an ass whoopen is too much give 1.5 (or a .5 edge in a round a guy barely lands a jab more than the other). It also opens the door to actually judging knockdowns better because not all knockdown should be equal either and if one guy gets hit while off off balance is not the same as a guy getting almost laid out.

It is still the 10 point must system also just giving more options to actually score a fight to what actually happened rather than just fitting square pegs in round holes and calling it close enough, which is a big part of the problem with boxing scoring which leads to people having problems with judging based on a flawed system.

I would hope a judge would be able to do some simple math, although it would be trickier to add up and they get it wrong at times now although not that often that number would increase a fair amount but it still wouldn't happen that much most likely.

Plus that would help to weed out judges that shouldn't be judging if someone can't do math like that should they really be judging fights with so much on the line? Not the most direct correlation but it would be a decent test to the judging talent pool and thin out some of the judges there that maybe shouldn't be there. Although could lose some that are actually good too that just couldn't do math.

[_Rexy_]

Judges like never give 10-8 rounds that don't include a knockdown or penalty, I don't remember seeing that last scorecard it happened on, you might be more likely to spot a Sasquatch than see a 10-8 round without a knockdown scored (or a point deduction of some manner). SO to me that needs to change and if giving 2 points for an ass whoopen is too much give 1.5. It also opens the door to actually judging knockdowns better because not all knockdown should be equal either and if one guy gets hit while off off balance is not the same as a guy getting almost laid out.

It is still the 10 point must system also just giving more options to actually score a fight to what actually happened rather than just fitting square pegs in round holes and calling it close enough, which is a big part of the problem with boxing scoring which leads to people having problems with judging based on a flawed system.

I would hope a judge would be able to do some simple math, although it would be trickier to add up and they get it wrong at times now although not that often that number would increase a fair amount but it still wouldn't happen that much most likely.

Plus that would help to weed out judges that shouldn't be judging if someone can't do math like that should they really be judging fights with so much on the line? Not the most direct correlation but it would be a decent test to the judging talent pool and thin out some of the judges there that maybe shouldn't be there. Although could lose some that are actually good too that just couldn't do math.

oh I was just making a joke about judges incompetence, stating that they likely couldn't add. I wasn't being serious haha

You're right about the two point ass whooping being rare. I don't think I've seen a 10-8 non knockdown round since Wilder/Steverne I