What Would be Your Idea to Improve Judging?

[_Rexy_]

Eliminate corruption and have a proper centralized body to certify judges, can be done easily. Say the sanctioning bodies won't allow judges to score fights until they are certified.

Certification process would have them go to training where they are taught by agreed upon guidelines how to judge a fight.

Every scorecard would have to be reviewed by this body and judges simply stripped of their rights if they misjudge a fight.

There should be no real room for interpretation. It should be clear to everyone how a fight will be scored, to the fighters, judges and fans.

Now these guidelines can change and should change, because some might begin to exploit the rules.

You cant have one judge reward aggression, and the next judge reward running all night and getting off a shot or two.

You need to look at each round in isolation and determine who inflicted more damage, at times it might be hard to say but you need to have scoring guidelines. What is more important? 3 hard blows or 6 medium (light shots?)

How should defense be rewarded? Making a an opponent miss a ton of shots should be rewarded. But if a fighter is in there with the sole purpose of not engaging and just slipping shots all day, that is not boxing either...

It's all a balancing act, and someone needs to teach these judges how to do that.

One centralized body? In boxing??

[New England]

i dont see how its so difficult. either you can score a fight or you cant, and i can.

i doubt you've ever sat ringside at a single boxing match, based on your posting.


it is nothing like scoring a fight on TV. nothing.

[dranoel]

Score all landed blows, an amateur system way. Points

Doesn't matter in regards to fighters overall intention and stratagem.

pretty much everything is irrelevant beyond it. Whether it is ring control or any of that, aggressive/passive posturing. That just all part of styles.

Things like cleaner blows, is way beyond me since there's no objective measuring gauge as to what is even effective per fighter. Goes under all intention etc.

only way to win is K.O and points. If the fighter was an aggressive one with higher density in his punches but doesn't out land his opponent he deserves to lose. He didn't get the k.o etc. Overall strategy failure i.e.

[_Rexy_]

Score all landed blows, an amateur system way. Points

Doesn't matter in regards to fighters overall intention and stratagem.

pretty much everything is irrelevant beyond it. Whether it is ring control or any of that, aggressive/passive posturing. That just all part of styles.

Things like cleaner blows, is way beyond me since there's no objective measuring gauge as to what is even effective per fighter. Goes under all intention etc.

only way to win is K.O and points. If the fighter was an aggressive one with higher density in his punches but doesn't out land his opponent he deserves to lose. He didn't get the k.o etc. Overall strategy failure i.e.

so if fighter one lands 100 jabs and fighter 2 lands 20 jabs, but 50 power punches, and fighter one gets knocked down, who wins? going off points will suck a lot of fun out of the sport as you'll just have giants like Tyson Fury standing and hitting with a jab and thats all.

[dranoel]

so if fighter one lands 100 jabs and fighter 2 lands 20 jabs, but 50 power punches, and fighter one gets knocked down, who wins? going off points will suck a lot of fun out of the sport as you'll just have giants like Tyson Fury standing and hitting with a jab and thats all.

Again, what?
well adding knock downs and all remains the same. Scoring a boxing match = easy.

What people misunderstand is because they involve it as a 'fight'.
Look at damage results etc.

The damage should be looked at after the contest is done. In your example if a guy can still throw 100 jabs while taking a beating, he'd be the winner. with the knockdown score you'd have number 2 winning the rounds though.

[Madison Boxing]

i doubt you've ever sat ringside at a single boxing match, based on your posting.


it is nothing like scoring a fight on TV. nothing.

i have at local level and its not much different, easier if anything cause you dont have a commentator talking bollocks. either a punch lands or it doesnt. its not hard to score a fight really, people over complicate it, especially on this site dumbasses overcomplicate it to look like pugilists with 'the trained eye' which is why we usually see some bizarre scorecards post fight on here.

[_Rexy_]

Just have no judges, and unlimited rounds. Fight until KO, Submission, or Death.

[Derranged]

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

1. Banko Villas is a glue sniffing troll who probably can't even tie his own shoes.

2. Most had Golovkin beating Canelo and Kovalev should've been given the decision against Ward, though it wasn't unfathomable to have Ward winning. I just think there's a stronger case for Kovalev.

[New England]

i have at local level and its not much different, easier if anything cause you dont have a commentator talking bollocks. either a punch lands or it doesnt. its not hard to score a fight really, people over complicate it, especially on this site dumbasses overcomplicate it to look like pugilists with 'the trained eye' which is why we usually see some bizarre scorecards post fight on here.

"i have at a local event."

IE i either sat close at one show, once, or i am lying entirely


away with you, the grown men are talking.

[Irony123]

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?

complete agree, watch the fight in a closed setting, no influence, chance to review the round after each round for 1 minute, use replay and make notes of why each round was given to each person.

Also judges need to have a consistent methodology of how they score fights, don't give an excuse like one judge prefers it this way while another prefers it that way. This is a sport and should be consistent. maybe even have value assigned to each scoring criteria, i.e. Punches landed (most value), effective aggression, ring generalship, defense etc. etc. etc.