It’s reasonable enough as it is , as it discounts for one bad scorecard. Obviously we have seen more than one before but it reduces the risk.
Similarly - if you had a fight where judges 1&2 score the fight 1 point to fighter A; but judge 3 gave a landslide to fighter B you could argue on aggregate fighter B won. But on the same basis it’s a majority win for fighter A.
To me this seems to the fairest solution.
Similarly - if you had a fight where judges 1&2 score the fight 1 point to fighter A; but judge 3 gave a landslide to fighter B you could argue on aggregate fighter B won. But on the same basis it’s a majority win for fighter A.
To me this seems to the fairest solution.
Comment