Printable View
I wanted to know what you guys thought should be done reform judges in boxing. Should ex-fighters be judges? Open scoring? Other ideas? Nothing has ever been done about the epidemic of bad judging decisions. Whether it be Macklin/Sturm or Cloud/Campillo, judges have consistently fucked up. Of course there are good ones, like the judges who scored the Rubio/Chavez fight and two of the judges for the Donaire/Vasquez fight. Let me know what your ideas are. I'm interested in hearing them
The problem comes in establishing who should decide which fights have been poorly judged. There seem to be a few inept judges who consistently score in such a weird esoteric way that the boxing press, general fan consensus and other boxers disagree with them. They then continue to be used even though their scoring criteria is completely at odds with reality. Who decides when a judges performance is below par? The state or country in which the fight Is held seen to have the power to hold referees to account but then what about judges,? Then again Joe Cortez kinda proves even that argument a little invalid.
The learning process to become a judge in theory should create competent judges. In most states, to become a judge requires first being an apprentice, which involves unofficially scoring fights with a mentor judge. Following the apprenticeship, the judge is certified as a boxing judge. The novice judge begins scoring 4 round fights, eventually moving on to 6 or 8 rounders, 10-12 rounders, and then championship fights. I believe there are continuing education classes for judges so that judges keep sharp. Consequently, the gradual nature of the learning process and the continual learning process should mold consistent, competent judges.
Still, judging is inherently subjective. Judges are taught to score fights based on (1) effective aggression; (2) clean punching; (3) ring generalship; and (4) defense. However, one judge may reward effective aggression more than defense, 3 clean punches more than 6 semi-clean punches, or hard punches over volume.
One thing that should be addressed are the conflicts of interest. In championship fights, judges are paid for by the state boxing commission out of the commission's fees from the championship fight. If a promoter is paying a judge $5000 to score a championship fight, providing accomodation and travel expenses to the judge, a judge may feel inclined to give close rounds to the promoter's fighter in order to put them in a good position to be hired in the future by that promoter. It's an inherent conflict of interest. Now, there may be less of a problem if the judge's expenses are being paid for by the state's commission with no relationship to a promoter or the fight. Does anyone know if state's commissions pay for judges or if promoters do?
Also, from what I understand, if a judge scores a fight poorly, in theory, the judge is required to review the scoring with the commission, explaining the scores.
Red, I've read in more than one place that the most important ingredient in scoring a fight is concentration. One tool some judge use to maximize their concentration is to divide the three minute round into 3 one minute rounds. This is just a tool. Don't forget that one third of a round may be stronger than the other two thirds, but it's helpful in close rounds.
I believe that if somebody does a bad enough job, they should be fired. Like the rest of us.
Joe Cortez. Fire him.
The two judges who scored the fight for Cloud. Fire them.
They need to do their jobs the right way. End of discussion...
There should be some sort of committee review for that sort of thing. I don't know. Shit just needs to be done.
I am always a fan of systems, in this case. I believe that judges should be rated class A, B, C, D, E etc.
Now fights would have to be ranked in order of importance:
A. Title fight
B. Eliminator
C. top 20 ranked fighters
D. top 50 ranked fighters
E. lower ranks, etc.
F. unsanctioned fights
This system of 6 ranks is simply for example and I'm not married to the idea. Now everyone starts as an F, in order to go from F to E judges would have to go through a certification program (fees can pay for the classes) that explains how to score a fight and includes testing and approval from a sanctioning body.
Now to move up from E to D a judge must judge 10 fights at lower levels without recourse from a sanctioning body. If the judge is found to be inept the cert can be revoked and the judge goes back an F status, otherwise they can apply to move up to D status.
This will continue from D to C, C to B and B to A. This makes incentive (bigger paydays) based on a successful track record as opposed to just knowing someone.
If they judge a fight wrong they will be executed in the ring after announcing the scores lol
But at least officially, promoters do not have any say what judges are hired, even if the money they're paid with theoretically passes through the promoter at one point in the chain: (a) commission picks judges, (b) fans pay for fight, (c) some tiny fraction of the money that fans paid for fight gets diverted to the judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
Unless you are alleging outright corruption/ a break from how it's set up to work, I don't see any conflict of interest. Plus, the money we're talking about is peanuts. I'm pretty sure the great majority of these guys have day jobs.
There must be a promotion and demotion of referees program for all commissions. I think that everybody can have 1 chance of a bad score BUT in severe cases eg: the judge Mr Robertson who scored for cloud 116-110 , he should be demoted to 6-8 rounders and asked to take or re-sit and judging tests if any.
Same with judges in 6-8-10 rounders , if they constantly score fight very well they should be promoted to title class.
I feel it would keep refs / judges on their toes a whole lot more.
Judges have ass-holes just like everyone else. Title fights should have at least 5 Judges. There are a few good judges that can be non-bias but that doesn't make the process any less subjective.
That is a logical idea, combined with promotions and demotions it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Good job.
I'm not alleging outright corruption. I wasn't sure whether promoters pay the judges or if the commission hires them. Can promoters veto judges? How are judges picked? Is it a lottery?Quote:
Originally Posted by shzaBut at least officially, promoters do not have any say what judges are hired, even if the money they're paid with theoretically passes through the promoter at one point in the chain: (a) commission picks judges, (b) fans pay for fight, (c) some tiny fraction of the money that fans paid for fight gets diverted to the judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
Unless you are alleging outright corruption/ a break from how it's set up to work, I don't see any conflict of interest. Plus, the money we're talking about is peanuts. I'm pretty sure the great majority of these guys have day jobs.
Judges are paid somwhere around $5000 for a title fight, and $3000 for the average televised fight + travel and accomodation expenses. It's not a bad living on the top level.
There has to be some sort of corruption. Something isn't right when a guy like Mr. Robertson is working on a world title fight as a judge and screws it up that bad.
Open scoring (or some fascimile) has been tried in one of the organizations (forget which), and doesn't work too well. They announce the score after the 4th round, I think. In any case, I think judges scores should be turned in after EVERY round. And if that's already being done, why on Earth do some fights take forever to add up the cards and announce the decision? It just feeds the suspicion everyone has that the scores can be tinkered with. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to collect cards from 3 judges at the end of each round and have them added up. That way, after the final round, you only have to add the scores from that last round. No complicated math here.
What this would do also is keep the judges attention on the CURRENT round. No going back and looking at how they scored the previous rounds. That is water under the bridge. A fight should be scored round-by-round, each round under its own merits. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some judges take a long time at the end, because they're reviewing their own scoring throughout the fight, and maybe trying to force a certain outcome. That should not be allowed.
And if paper is a problem, have the judges punch in the end-of-round score electronically. Again... maybe they already do this, I don't know. All I know is that boxing should do everything possible to keep the judges' focus strictly on the round happening in front of them. And announcing of the final score at the end of even the closest and most controversial fights should be a matter of seconds.... not long, drawn-out minutes. Again... it's not calculus or trigonometry. It's simple arithmetic.
Judges should have their scores monitored and if there are consistant scores that are against the actual fight then they should go through a disciplinary and work improvement process. If they are found to be not fit to work then they should be sacked.
The big problem here is who is responsible for this? Same problem with my pro/rel idea. If it's a sanctioning bodies responsibility or an athletic commission how do they enforce it to other groups?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
The state boxing fights are held at.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepThe big problem here is who is responsible for this? Same problem with my pro/rel idea. If it's a sanctioning bodies responsibility or an athletic commission how do they enforce it to other groups?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
The kicker is we have a hand full of states that don't even have commissions and or have to "borrow" a neighbors or have no boxing at all. We've seen just recently that even some of the larger commissions cannot...or will not even enforce their own contracted specifications and requirements and overlook pre and post fight procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterThe state boxing fights are held at.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepThe big problem here is who is responsible for this? Same problem with my pro/rel idea. If it's a sanctioning bodies responsibility or an athletic commission how do they enforce it to other groups?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
There is no accountability for judges. I do think we are seeing certain cases of more reviews etc but on a large scale the judging process is all very helter skelter if not made up as the go. Judges should have zero interactions with promoters let alone having them seated 2,3 seats ringside in some cases. Its a drop in the bucket but all judges should be officially introduced on camera, before and after as scores are read. I don't want to put scarlet letters on them just a starting step to take away some of the anonymity. I don't see anything changing at all until we see some type of unified commission who will clean up its own house. Just far too many localized ties and influences.
So if a judge is banned in New Jersey what's to stop them from judging in New York?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterThe state boxing fights are held at.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepThe big problem here is who is responsible for this? Same problem with my pro/rel idea. If it's a sanctioning bodies responsibility or an athletic commission how do they enforce it to other groups?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Yes a completely incorruptible international organization like FIFA. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliThe kicker is we have a hand full of states that don't even have commissions and or have to "borrow" a neighbors or have no boxing at all. We've seen just recently that even some of the larger commissions cannot...or will not even enforce their own contracted specifications and requirements and overlook pre and post fight procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterThe state boxing fights are held at.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepThe big problem here is who is responsible for this? Same problem with my pro/rel idea. If it's a sanctioning bodies responsibility or an athletic commission how do they enforce it to other groups?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
There is no accountability for judges. I do think we are seeing certain cases of more reviews etc but on a large scale the judging process is all very helter skelter if not made up as the go. Judges should have zero interactions with promoters let alone having them seated 2,3 seats ringside in some cases. Its a drop in the bucket but all judges should be officially introduced on camera, before and after as scores are read. I don't want to put scarlet letters on them just a starting step to take away some of the anonymity. I don't see anything changing at all until we see some type of unified commission who will clean up its own house. Just far too many localized ties and influences.
Seriously though, I really hope we head in that direction. ONE set of rules, ONE champ per division, ONE organization responsible for enforcing the rules.
Bingo.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
This is what I think should be done, obviously some ex-fighters could have a bias or prejudice against some promoters, trainers etc. But, the vast majority would judge fairly I feel as they know what its like to be SCREWED by the judges.
There is probably nothing stopping ex boxers applying to be judges now. Why would they want to do it though? A lot of lower level boxers seem to become referees, but not judges. Is it a money issue?
Same thing with ex-footballers, they do not earn enough and have too much aggro to deal with being a judge or referee.
Interesting discussion here.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
You guys may be interested in this site I helped build called Eye On The Ring. It's like Rotten Tomatoes, except instead of films, there's fights you can score (and rate). But the principle idea is a collective repository for fan cards. When the group of us who started the site had discussions about why we should build it, bad judging was a main issue discussed. (To be fair, I know of at least one other site that does what we do. But we hope to add so much more extra analysis to our data that we expect to be the best.)
Also this is the first time I've heard of the idea of a fourth judge. (I'm a new fan! Only got into boxing over the last couple few years...) But I don't know if more judges really will help.
Forgot to add link. But tried and can't until I have more posts -- you can find it at eye on the ring dot com if needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by elcolibriInteresting discussion here.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
You guys may be interested in this site I helped build called Eye On The Ring. It's like Rotten Tomatoes, except instead of films, there's fights you can score (and rate). But the principle idea is a collective repository for fan cards. When the group of us who started the site had discussions about why we should build it, bad judging was a main issue discussed. (To be fair, I know of at least one other site that does what we do. But we hope to add so much more extra analysis to our data that we expect to be the best.)
Also this is the first time I've heard of the idea of a fourth judge. (I'm a new fan! Only got into boxing over the last couple few years...) But I don't know if more judges really will help.
Top level judges like Jerry Roth, Melvina Lathan, Duane Ford, Chuck Giampa, all make very good money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
Ex-fighters should replace them as top level judges, because all of the aforementioned judges have screwed over countless fighters, altering and ruining careers due to corruption and ignorance.
Mostly corruption.
I think there have been more than a few, I remember Harold Gomes was a judge for a number of years. While it may bring a more honest respect or perspective for what they are judging I dont think it would do away with the ever present influence of the promoter and governing body. I believe they ultimately decide if an official gets work...it almost seems similar to jury selection?!Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkTop level judges like Jerry Roth, Melvina Lathan, Duane Ford, Chuck Giampa, all make very good money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
Ex-fighters should replace them as top level judges, because all of the aforementioned judges have screwed over countless fighters, altering and ruining careers due to corruption and ignorance.
Mostly corruption.
One thing I've never been big on was how many judges serve as refs as well, even on same nights. You'd think it has to sway focus big time.
I like this idea very much. Someone should hire you to implement this sort of program. I just wish someone high-ranking in the boxing world would have the balls to propose it.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Flog them unmercifully.
Just kidding (I think). I saw someone was browsing this thread and thought it was an appropriate one to bump at this time.
Get rid of judges and just fight till someone wins with a KO