Comments Thread For: Doing Away With Frustrating Scorecard Draws

[Verus]

I've mooted the idea before and I know it ain't popular on here, but I think technology has progressed to the point where genuine crowd / media scoring is a real possibility. The statistical tools to round out outlying picks and minimise or eliminate vote rigging are well understood, and contrary to many on here I have every faith in the ability of your common or garden boxing enthusiast to score a fight well... or at least competently as they see it. Some kind of selection algorithm to weed out those who regularly throw in scores well away from the consensus and use those scorers who have turned in acceptable scores previously could remove the very worst pickers and simple weight of averages could take care of the rest.

This shit is a populist sport, and your average fan shouldn't be told on the regular that in effect he's too dumb to score a fight.

The problem with what you propose is not that the average fan is "too dumb." The problem is that the average fan is not impartial. Fans are at the core partisan. The term fan is just a shortened version of the word fanatic.

[Shadoww702]

Having the media judge fights is the DUMBEST idea of all!!! They tend to favor certain fighters especially ones that are friendly to them. You cant tell me they wouldn't be biased? Im fine 13 rounds but some ppl might be very hesitant doing 13 some countries including the usa consider 13 unlucky because of Judas betrayal of Jesus. Most buildings dont even have a 13 floor button listed in the elevator.

I Iike the 4th judge idea. But HELL no on the media. Anyone that blows them off or gives them a bad interview itbwill be in their cards. And ones that warships them will get more love.

[Jab jab boom]

The bigger problem is corruption and the constant favoring of an A side fighter. Whoever brings in the most money usually gets favorable scoring. You can switch to odd rounds, 5 judges instead of 3, but unless you tackle corruption, it won't matter because s****y scorecards will still get turnes in by judges looking out for their financial interest.

[sargo]

The scoring system works. The problem is corruption and incompetent judges.....and referees.

And even the commentators.

[Fabes88]

I've never understood why they went from 15 rounds to 12.

They should've gone to 13 or 11 or something or at least, as you said have a final 13th round in case of draw.

Also, we have so much technology now, why can't they design a computer program that can judge fights?

It couldn't do worse than Adelaide Byrd and CJ Ross.

Or have judges sitting at different parts of the ring so they're not all seeing the same thing.

Or don't announce the judges until the fight of the night. Have a pool of like 20 people who could be judges and then pick 3 at random to be the judges for that particular fight.

The wbss has a fifth judge in case of a draw and a countback system as back up i think. That could be adopted wider

[Adamsc151]

So the IBO belt is now viewed as a "legit title"? I'm sure every other time Lyle Fitzsimmons has done these previews he's lumped it in with the WBA "regular" in terms of legitimacy, so what has changed all of a sudden?
In the past, specific fighters have helped legitimize new alphabet titles; I wonder who has done the deed this time in Lyle's eyes?

[Citizen Koba]

The problem with what you propose is not that the average fan is "too dumb." The problem is that the average fan is not impartial. Fans are at the core partisan. The term fan is just a shortened version of the word fanatic.

I'd make two observations - firstly that the obsessives on boxing forums may live or die by their favourite fighters, but I think you give the 'average' fan far too little credit. Mostly folk just want to see a good fight.

Quite aside from which a good statistical model could take account of previous choices which seem to be markedly out of sink with broadly accepted scorelines and adjust to make inclusion of notably biased scorers less likely.

Secondly, despite each of the various fanbases on this (and other boxing forums) being apparently convinced that they represent a tiny minority facing off against a tide of hostile opinion, in fact they are relatively well balanced... in most cases there's a fairly small number of particularly vocal fans balanced by a roughly equal number of equally prolific 'haters' for any fighter, while a far larger (and less biased) silent majority watches on. I'd say not only can most of even the partisan minority be trusted more than you'd think to give an honest assessment, but the number of seriously biased fans is smaller than you'd think (even if they constitute the most frequent contributors to boxing forums).

'Sides which who's to decide who is biased anyway? And is the risk of bias in crowd scoring (which can be largely mitigated by statistical tools anyway) actually worse than the known likelihood of one or two out of three judges turning in inexplicable scores for reasons that can only be speculated at?

[Verus]

I'd make two observations - firstly that the obsessives on boxing forums may live or die by their favourite fighters, but I think you give the 'average' fan far too little credit. Mostly folk just want to see a good fight.

Quite aside from which a good statistical model could take account of previous choices which seem to be markedly out of sink with broadly accepted scorelines and adjust to make inclusion of notably biased scorers less likely.

Secondly, despite each of the various fanbases on this (and other boxing forums) being apparently convinced that they represent a tiny minority facing off against a tide of hostile opinion, in fact they are relatively well balanced... in most cases there's a fairly small number of particularly vocal fans balanced by a roughly equal number of equally prolific 'haters' for any fighter, while a far larger (and less biased) silent majority watches on. I'd say not only can most of even the partisan minority be trusted more than you'd think to give an honest assessment, but the number of seriously biased fans is smaller than you'd think (even if they constitute the most frequent contributors to boxing forums).

'Sides which who's to decide who is biased anyway? And is the risk of bias in crowd scoring (which can be largely mitigated by statistical tools anyway) actually worse than the known likelihood of one or two out of three judges turning in inexplicable scores for reasons that can only be speculated at?

I wish I could be as optimistic as you on this issue, but I think that people tend to be fans of particular athletes and teams more than the sport itself. This probably, even more, the case in combat sports. I grant you that the professional judges are sometimes atrocious. Maybe some test case experiments are needed to see if your idea will work.

[Citizen Koba]

I wish I could be as optimistic as you on this issue, but I think that people tend to be fans of particular athletes and teams more than the sport itself. This probably, even more, the case in combat sports. I grant you that the professional judges are sometimes atrocious. Maybe some test case experiments are needed to see if your idea will work.

That would be the obvious first step. There are of course already some crowd scoring sites and apps in use (and the apparently reasonable results from these are one of the reasons I am optimistic)which could provide useful baseline data but a more methodical approach would probably be required.

[Shadoww702]

That would be the obvious first step. There are of course already some crowd scoring sites and apps in use (and the apparently reasonable results from these are one of the reasons I am optimistic)which could provide useful baseline data but a more methodical approach would probably be required.

That eye in the sky i like to look at and is pretty acurate