We always talk about and compare boxing referees, which is great. We rank them... we praise them... we dump on them as needed. Cool.
But how about boxing judges?
For all the lousy decisions, outright robberies, inept judging, obviously biased and/or corrupt judges that we've always had and continue to have... as far as I know there isn't enough conversation about judges. We only talk about judges immediately after yet another lousy decision. Then we forget... and life goes on until the next horribly judged fight. We hold fighters and referees accountable forever. But we seem to have a short memory span when it comes to lousy judges. Even those who continue to give us lousy scoring after lousy scoring. Why is that?
Well... I'd like to do my bit in rectifying the situation, even if it's just starting a new thread on Saddo's.
A cursory look on the Internet, brought me to this site:
It's a database on boxers, but also has a tab for judges. Click on that tab, and you get a list of professional boxing judges, along with their country of origin, # of fights worked, a rating, and a column called "Different." I read the "ratings" explanation on the judges FAQ section, and frankly it kind of sucked. But at least I found somewhere where an attempt (albeit a half-assed one) is made to rate judges. The "Different" column I have no earthly idea what it means.
Other than that, I haven't found anything else.
Why is it so difficult to find info on how judges are rated/ranked? Does anyone know of another site?
Well-known professional boxing judges make about $1,500/fight on regular fights, and $15,000 for main events. Some of these high-profile judges make $300,000/year in salary.
Their work is the most determining factor in fights that go the distance. A lot hinges on their accuracy and consistency.
So why oh why is there so little transparency and accountability on their work??