Thoughts on computer judging

I was wondering this week what boxing decisions would be like if one of the three judges was a computer?

It could calculate the winner of the round based on punch stats, connect percentages, power punches landed, workrate etc. I'm not sure if a computer can be programmed to calculate things like ring generalship but as time went on surely they would get better at programming a more accurate computer.

Anyway my reasoning is that in virtually every fight you seem to get at least one judge who was practically making up his scorecard or watching the wrong fight and a computer simply could not do a worse job than them.

Of course occasionally a computer might get it wrong, but I'd imagine far less often than human judges who balls up fights every week, and with only one computer judge, the two humans could overule if they both agreed differently.

I know it won't happen but I actually think this could go some way to improving results in practice and making fight results a bit fairer.

Three minds, two human imcompetents and one silican, to me it's better than just three human imcompetents.

Any thoughts?

i get what you're saying, but honestly i don't it'll ever happen, especially when they wont even make instant replay a part of the sport, i think that judges like Adalaide Byrd and Glen Hammada, among others should seriously get penalized for ridiculous scores like Hammada's in the Diaz/Malignaggi fight and well almost every Fernando Vargas fight that Byrd scored, if the commission's would have a fine for favoritism lol maybe they'd get their shit together

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

i get what you're saying, but honestly i don't it'll ever happen, especially when they wont even make instant replay a part of the sport, i think that judges like Adalaide Byrd and Glen Hammada, among others should seriously get penalized for ridiculous scores like Hammada's in the Diaz/Malignaggi fight and well almost every Fernando Vargas fight that Byrd scored, if the commission's would have a fine for favoritism lol maybe they'd get their shit together

---

Yeah I agree but I think it would work better than the current situation.

The main thing is, that unlike human judges, computers would get better and more accurate over time as technology improved and those working on it came up with better programming and algorithms.

In the 21st century its inexcusable imo that modern technology such as instant replays and compubox type stats arn't made available to the referee's and judges and used to come to better and fairer decisions.

Boxing insists on living in the early 20th century in so many ways. I know they are not the only sport to do so but it's a problem in boxing because its far and away the worst sport in the world for correctly getting a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

i get what you're saying, but honestly i don't it'll ever happen, especially when they wont even make instant replay a part of the sport, i think that judges like Adalaide Byrd and Glen Hammada, among others should seriously get penalized for ridiculous scores like Hammada's in the Diaz/Malignaggi fight and well almost every Fernando Vargas fight that Byrd scored, if the commission's would have a fine for favoritism lol maybe they'd get their shit together

---

Yeah I agree but I think it would work better than the current situation.

The main thing is, that unlike human judges, computers would get better and more accurate over time as technology improved and those working on it came up with better programming and algorithms.

In the 21st century its inexcusable imo that modern technology such as instant replays and compubox type stats arn't made available to the referee's and judges and used to come to better and fairer decisions.

Boxing insists on living in the early 20th century in so many ways. I know they are not the only sport to do so but it's a problem in boxing because its far and away the worst sport in the world for correctly getting a result.

---

main reason they don't want instant replay is cause then the committee that has to review the tapes won't be necessary, meaning it'd save money lol, instead of spending god knows how long to evaluate a tape then (more times then not) do nothing about the situation, with instant replay the ref would be able to make the call and decide right then and there

I've had thoughts about solutions to the judge problem too. I thought of something where the fans could text or call in score cards and they would take the average and the fan vote would account for the 3rd judge.

I don't know though, 3 judges should be able to accurately score a fight. Just like a computer/spectator vote should be able too. Probably will be flaws with any system.

And having a computer rate people's performance sounds freaky. What if the computers gained consciousness. Or learned how to love. Or learned they could control humanity.

My god...I just realized I'm on a computer right now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cortez The Killer

I've had thoughts about solutions to the judge problem too. I thought of something where the fans could text or call in score cards and they would take the average and the fan vote would account for the 3rd judge.

I don't know though, 3 judges should be able to accurately score a fight. Just like a computer/spectator vote should be able too. Probably will be flaws with any system.

And having a computer rate people's performance sounds freaky. What if the computers gained consciousness. Or learned how to love. Or learned they could control humanity.

My god...I just realized I'm on a computer right now...

---

JUDGEMENT DAY!!! lol

I strongly disagree with using a computer to judge rounds, the only thing that could be entered really at this point with technology (at least without putting sensors in the gloves) Is punches landed and thrown, that is only one of the criteria. Effective agressiveness cannot be judged by the quantity of punches thrown, rather the quality. There are far too many reliability issues as well.
The primary one, being a machine where the code has been altered in which case the problem of corrupt judges will not be solved. There is too much money at stake in boxing for someone to not tamper with the machines.

The CONCEPT you discribed is fantastic IMO. I don't see it being impossible or unrealistic; however, the problem i see is the money involvement. Boxing is all about the money (which i always hate to admit out loud) and there would be nothing to gain for the business aspect. Not only would it cost X amount of dollars to run it, fix it, improve it, or run simple maintence jobs, but no one would benefit from this system except for the fightfans. Which boxing has proven time and time again that the fightfan doesn't matter as much as the business. Otherwise we would have much better matchups and worthwhile undercards.

Downfalls for the "business" of boxing:

1. Jobs lost from going down to 2 judges - aren't we already on a bad trend of technology replacing our workers. Which i feel the honest judges would be pushed back more then the corrupt.
2. Harder time fixing fights for certain fighters. - I'm sure the business fat cats would not like losing that judge that they have paid under the table
3. If the computer does happen to mess up and score a fight incorrectly like Malinaggi/Diaz what kind of uproar would that bring? Because if its a man, he can just stick to his story no matter how silly it is. A computer on the other will cause so much chaos if it messes something up.
4. Accusations of tampering - it would happen!
5. What if it breaks down in the 12th round???


Personally i love it, but i think the business is what will keep it from happening. The capability is definitely there..


Good thread!

I think a something that would help the problem would be a grading system, where judges judgements would be analyzed in a post fight way. Judges (such as the 118-110 for Diaz) would be given a reduction in grade. The grade would be directly tied to the judges pay and ability to actually sit in on Championship fights etc. That way there would be a punishment for poor judging and reward for fair judging. This should be easy to implement as all of the major sanctioning bodies have groups of people that vote for their rankings already, it would be easy enough for them to look the judging of the fights they see as well.

:shakehead:

How can a computer tell which "power shots" were more effective, how can a computer tell if a guy is hurt, does a power punch count twice as much as a normal punch, 1/2 as much, three times as much, punch stats aren't everything and this is just a bad idea.

Anyway how many really bad decisions are there a year? At least among the elite level? Too many but probably less than you would think. There are more crappy scorecards but overall okay decisions than just outright bad decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

:shakehead:

How can a computer tell which "power shots" were more effective, how can a computer tell if a guy is hurt, does a power punch count twice as much as a normal punch, 1/2 as much, three times as much, punch stats aren't everything and this is just a bad idea.

---

I completely agree with you Ouma, there would be flaws but honestly answer me this question.

How many fights on HBO have there been where compubox clearly favours one fight but the other guy wins the decision and it's NOT been a highly controversial decision?

Yes there are flaws but in purely practical terms my bet is that even compubox is far more accurate in terms of agreeing with the general perceptions of the majority than even the supposedly most competent judges.

We might get the odd decision where we think the guy who was second best according to compubox should have won the fight but you would NEVER get a wrong lopsided decision using this method, and 8 out of 10 times the result would be universally agreed as correct, with maybe 1 time debatable and the less than 1 in 10 wrong, which is a much better stat than the judges can manage.:)

How many times lately has their been a fight where a guy clearly won out on compubox but didn't get the decision (20 or so punches over 12 rounds I don't consider clearly)? Not a rhetorical question, my mind is going blank. In the case of Malignaggi-Diaz, such a tragedy of justice apparently, Malignaggi landed like 12 or so more total punches but Diaz landed more power shots, so what's the power shot to jab ratio of importance?

I just don't like it. I like grading better but for that it would help to have a national commission.

The thing is that a computer induced judge would be all a new paradigm to us and it is a bit hard to imagine a sport we like getting such radical changing without being touched by it at least emotively; PErsonally, I am partly reluctant to it too because I would find it odd but somehow, I also know that a part of my judgment comes from the fact that it is an emotive reaction; Though I am highly rational, I tend to affection some things in daily life and to me, judges bring something more human to boxing and I don't like the idea that a machine created by men would judge men in their own sports.
Very rationally though, let's imagine that the geeks from IBM would be able to make a super computer program that would judge with a very very high accuracy a match and calculate the ringwise and such, why would we spit on it without any regard? without making this computer the main judge, we could perhaps think of a system (always admitting that this super program/computer exists) where he wouldn't be the sole judge but one of the judge or at least, a reference that the judge could consult in tight rounds where they have difficulties to make their mind, a kind of technological tool to their service, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

:shakehead:

How can a computer tell which "power shots" were more effective, how can a computer tell if a guy is hurt, does a power punch count twice as much as a normal punch, 1/2 as much, three times as much, punch stats aren't everything and this is just a bad idea.

---

imo there are ways to work around it, i mean there are sensors that can count the punches that land, and also sensors that can measure the force of each punch, but still i agree it's kinda a bit too sketchy, and too much crap to work around, i say bring instant replay then in another 50 yrs try a computer judge lol

I'm sure there are more and more problems with it that we just haven't thought of yet. How could it tell a 10-8 round with no KD's? Would you have to land like 55 power shots, oh well dude just landed 54, 10-9! How could it tell if a guy really deserved a 10-8 round if he had a KD but the other guy clearly won the rest of the round? At least it would know to give a guy a 10-6 round if he had three KD's :beat: Meh, I'm all for it.

BTW Bilbo I agreed with you on another thread, it really can happen :o There was like a two week period when I agreed with you on almost everything, it was uncanny and disturbing.

Don't think the problem is the human element but rather the disregard and pure lack of accountability.Not a fan of punch stats as they themselves are determined but human and not accurate.Fighter a may land more shots but that does not tell the story on their actual impact...this is not the amatuers and we dont even want to talk about the Olympic scoring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I'm sure there are more and more problems with it that we just haven't thought of yet. How could it tell a 10-8 round with no KD's? Would you have to land like 55 power shots, oh well dude just landed 54, 10-9! How could it tell if a guy really deserved a 10-8 round if he had a KD but the other guy clearly won the rest of the round? At least it would know to give a guy a 10-6 round if he had three KD's :beat: Meh, I'm all for it.

---

thing is if it's with sensors (cause i don't know any other way that it'd be) how the hell would it know if there's a kd in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

BTW Bilbo I agreed with you on another thread, it really can happen :o There was like a two week period when I agreed with you on almost everything, it was uncanny and disturbing.

---

Cool was it a week where I posted loads of convincing evidence in support of biblical creationsim and also extolled the positive virtues of transexulism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

i get what you're saying, but honestly i don't it'll ever happen, especially when they wont even make instant replay a part of the sport, i think that judges like Adalaide Byrd and Glen Hammada, among others should seriously get penalized for ridiculous scores like Hammada's in the Diaz/Malignaggi fight and well almost every Fernando Vargas fight that Byrd scored, if the commission's would have a fine for favoritism lol maybe they'd get their shit together

---

Yeah I agree but I think it would work better than the current situation.

The main thing is, that unlike human judges, computers would get better and more accurate over time as technology improved and those working on it came up with better programming and algorithms.

In the 21st century its inexcusable imo that modern technology such as instant replays and compubox type stats arn't made available to the referee's and judges and used to come to better and fairer decisions.

Boxing insists on living in the early 20th century in so many ways. I know they are not the only sport to do so but it's a problem in boxing because its far and away the worst sport in the world for correctly getting a result.

---

if a computer would have a really smart a.i. that they can also be considered as thinking organisms that can be done.
however, you can't take away corruption in anything, from this time or in the future. who knows, a corrupt promoter can hire a hacker to reprogram the computer in favor of their own fighter.
when we have solutions to old problems, new problems will surely arise.

I don't like it and never have. It's totally quantatative and lacks the ability to measure the effectiveness of punches. In a word, it sux!