With this whole outrage, I'm wondering what we think is the best way for a fight to be scored fairly.

I've been pretty vocal about the fight not being a robbery, but I definitely think that kovalev deserved the W. My idea is that with only 3 judges, it's easier to get in their ear or pay them off. Or there is even the problem that it's such a small sample size that they could all (or at least 2 of them) could side with the minority. Even if one fighter could have a case of winning, they probably don't deserve to win if they only have a "case" instead of good solid evidence to the contrary.

My idea is have a panel of 50 boxing writers, experts, etc that score the fight. With this, it's much harder to pay off and corrupt so many people. Also, if 50 people are scoring the fight, it's almost guaranteed that the majority of them will agree with the majority of the boxing fans.

My biggest problem goes back to who deserves to win vs who you could potentially give enough rounds to to squeak by. This would basically always have the right fighter winning. It's a bit unorthodox, but it would work way better.

What do you think? Got any better ideas?