What's the best way to have fights scored fairly?

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?

it depends, if its on television theres is no fair fights, if its money involved there's no fair fights, if there is two people fighting in a hay ring there might be a change it's fair fight because the fight is over when one of them cant throw a punch anymore.

The main problem with my idea is that it could only be used on bigger fights. Maybe only with title fights or televised cards. I don't know. I mean, you can't be down in Mexico expecting two journeymen to have 50 people scoring their fight.

Announce the scores every 3 rounds and before the last

I think we've had this conversation before and to be fair, there is never going to be a perfect system, although these 2 things might help:
1. The judges are not sat ringside because a. Being right under the action isn't the best view to judge from and b. At ringside they can be influenced by the crowd and the boxer's corner/team. They should be sat in front of TV Monitors in a quiet room and are not allowed to talk to each other.
2. I thought at the Olympics , they had a brilliant idea where 5 judges judge the fight , but only 3 cards were picked randomly at the end of the fight. I thought that was genius , but as we saw in Rio , even that wasn't foolproof.
Like I said, I'm afraid there is no perfect system.

I had this conversation with friend about 3 years ago.

My idea (which isn't for everyone) is to have 10 rounds and fight till a KO after 10 rounds if no KO then most Knockdown wins

After all we are fighting.. but this eliminates yours Floyd mayweather's and andre wards from the mix.

Basically it makes it power based.

Unfortunately this isn't the case.

This is why people scores Kov over Ward as they see it as the big punchers punches are worth more and it's why the people like me who take effective jabbing, punch misses and body shots into account. Because boxing isn't a knockout game, it's a hit and not be hit game.

With a gun aimed at each of the judges heads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

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?

---

This is always a good topic, no matter how many times it's brought up.
The problem is so huge, and turns off so many potential fans, it's worth repeating as many times as it takes.


1. First let's start with the quality of the judges themselves. There should be an oversight panel with the authority to "disbar" (so to speak) judges with questionable records in previous fights. If this is already being done, they're doing a horseshit job.

2. Having a panel of 50 judges seems like a potential logistical nightmare, but I'm in favor of increasing the number of judges to 5. Statistically speaking, 5 judges have less of a chance to screw up a fight than 3.

3. A radical idea, but worth mulling over, is doing away with cards altogether. Give the judges nothing to write with. Merely an electronic panel on which to enter the score of the round when it's over. Eliminate the possibility of fudging scores frantically at the end to achieve a desired result.

4. I don't agree with announcing scores mid-fight. It lends itself to all sorts of mid-fight adjustments by the judges and other undesirable consequences.

5. On international championship fights, use judges from neutral countries or.... if one of the countries has to be represented, have an equal number of judges from the other country.

6. Withhold payment on blatantly bad scoring. We talk about doing it with boxers, why not judges.

Pay me alone to do it, I'm never wrong.

Obviously the best option that is most practical is to crack down on bad judges, but the problem is that they don't do it. There are big named judges who have had multiple horrible scores and are still judging.

Sober ???

or have the judges stand ring center on camera as scores are read. Or they read them themselves. Including cell numbers on jumbo Tron may help.

there is little to no accountability for judges as is true with no review process, no "record" and tracking of patterns used by commissions. Basically we go "awwwwwww shit I hate boxing but hey what can ya do" and watch a professional who takes the damage get throttled by a guy they'll never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

Announce the scores every 3 rounds and before the last

---

I hate this idea, as soon as fighter A realises he cant be caught on points he is on his bike a running for the remainder of the fight.
Fighter B realises that although it is a close fight the judges have him so far down that he can't win on points and knowing that he doesn't have the power to KO him you are stuck with a dull ending to a potentially cracking final few rounds.

Those are just a few of the potential scenarios you get with announcing the score cards mid fight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

I had this conversation with friend about 3 years ago.

My idea (which isn't for everyone) is to have 10 rounds and fight till a KO after 10 rounds if no KO then most Knockdown wins

After all we are fighting.. but this eliminates yours Floyd mayweather's and andre wards from the mix.

Basically it makes it power based.

Unfortunately this isn't the case.

This is why people scores Kov over Ward as they see it as the big punchers punches are worth more and it's why the people like me who take effective jabbing, punch misses and body shots into account. Because boxing isn't a knockout game, it's a hit and not be hit game.

---

When you was discussing this with your friend was you aware that your own idea would actually be taking the sport away from people like yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

I had this conversation with friend about 3 years ago.

My idea (which isn't for everyone) is to have 10 rounds and fight till a KO after 10 rounds if no KO then most Knockdown wins

After all we are fighting.. but this eliminates yours Floyd mayweather's and andre wards from the mix.

Basically it makes it power based.

Unfortunately this isn't the case.

This is why people scores Kov over Ward as they see it as the big punchers punches are worth more and it's why the people like me who take effective jabbing, punch misses and body shots into account. Because boxing isn't a knockout game, it's a hit and not be hit game.

---

Good to see some still count body shots. Many fans clearly don't. You can literally see a fighter weakening, begin slowing, balance failing from body shots and many fans "he didn't land anything". Ummm, he did if you watch the fight properly.

I think the fact people are outraged over a fight that could go either way shows that the best thing to do to improve scoring is teach fans how to score. Less outrage and more appropriate outrage is a good place to start.

I would have 5 judges.

could ai scoring be used alongside judges as another scorecard?
https://youtu.be/TWo2TI5yA-g

Saw this too and really has the feel of putting a shine and wax on a car still in need of major engine repairs. Basically it takes the punch stat side of things as gospel to an accurate account of how a round breakdowns. The substance therein and definition of "effective punches" in favor of amateur boxing bean counter. Personally I'll take a single counter uppercut that stuns fighter A rather than 10 flick jabs just scratching the chin of fighter B. May have a few fighters who master the art of jousting from the backseat and corners keeping count and such. It is a consideration that boxing can take from though, an attempt to improve judging and that has to be welcome in many forms.

AI should be used for stats and aid the judges but not to decide the round themselves. We need the human element to do that. If that subjectivity means rounds being given to the wrong boxer so be it.

i'm sure i saw something about censors in gloves awhile back, if used together it could some type of indication of how a round played out. i'd be interested to see how the ai scored some controversial fights

Two referees in the ring and five judges ringside Plus two independent punch counters combined into an algorithm to give an instantaneous logarithmic calculation of which fighter actually won the fight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TIC

i'm sure i saw something about censors in gloves awhile back, if used together it could some type of indication of how a round played out. i'd be interested to see how the ai scored some controversial fights

---

Ran across this but not sure how it would be implemented and sounds more for training or bag work. Sensors/chips interesting but could give a whole new meaning to pause for technical difficulties. Have we even settled on a universal glove tape that stays wrapped ;D

https://youtu.be/kk5GHE3hrHQ

Just have a fight to the death, no judges, no need for opinions...simples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TIC

i'm sure i saw something about censors in gloves awhile back, if used together it could some type of indication of how a round played out. i'd be interested to see how the ai scored some controversial fights

---

Ran across this but not sure how it would be implemented and sounds more for training or bag work. Sensors/chips interesting but could give a whole new meaning to pause for technical difficulties. Have we even settled on a universal glove tape that stays wrapped ;D

https://youtu.be/kk5GHE3hrHQ

---

they say they put all that tech in the nfl balls that record a lot of information so the technology is there, just needs to be tweeked. you are right, until there everyone is onboard & are looking to advance the sport nothing will improve, look at instant replay, that should already be in use everywhere

Ever score rounds minute to minute? Almost impossible to catch an even round that way, but scoring knockdowns may get complicated. It would be interesting to find out how many judges over the years were-are actually former pro fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Ever score rounds minute to minute? Almost impossible to catch an even round that way, but scoring knockdowns may get complicated. It would be interesting to find out how many judges over the years were-are actually former pro fighters.

---

i tend to score first half of the round then second half

I'd say increase the number of judges from 3 to 5. One on each side of the ring, and maybe one that can move around randomly.

In my mind I score the round like a street fighter game.

Each hit causing damage and giving them points. The bigger the punch the greater the green bar in my head gives them.

So I score the full 3 minutes and never forget the impact of the early punches in the round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell

Two referees in the ring and five judges ringside Plus two independent punch counters combined into an algorithm to give an instantaneous logarithmic calculation of which fighter actually won the fight

---

I will stick with my answer from ONE YEAR ago

The problem with technology is that you have to have a human build the technology and code the technology and output the resultant data from the technology. If you're in the business of paying people off, you just pay a different person.

I'm in favour of more judges watching from anywhere other than ringside and cards picked at random from a number of the judges. Again though, you'd just pay the judges as normal and pay one more guy to pick the right judges no?

The idea that the judges need to be there and on three of four sides of the ring is nonsense. Enough people watching from a single view point on TV, know bullshit when they see bullshit. It's not rocket surgery.

Then why not apply that to other sports that require judging?

Having TV or remote judges might or might not be a good idea... but I don't see that happening anytime soon. So instead, provide the judges that ARE there with the best vantage points. And put more of them. It's painfully obvious in boxing that three judges are many times incapable of arriving at a good decision. Put five, then. THAT... isn't rocket science.

To me it's six of one... half dozen of the other whether the judges watch from ringside... TV... or a platform hanging over the ring. The point really is: NOBODY knows or agrees on HOW to judge. It's a bunch of half-assed, supposed, unwritten rules on which hardly ANYONE agrees. Is it any wonder judging cards are many times all over the place??

Judging in boxing has been given the care and attention that lint traps sometimes get on dryers... which is to say, NONE. Something as critical to the sport as judging gets the occasional casual nod or headshake, but nothing more. We've all complained hundreds of times about shoddy judging... and nothing ever gets done.

So bring all the hair-brained ideas. SOMETHING needs to be done.

there have been many good ideas over the years but the boxing community refuses to do anything, a judge with a really bad card should be interviewd live immediately following fighter interviews to explain themselves. the commisions need to start holding judges accountable for their bad cards. i like the idea of five cards, three judges cards, an average from assigned press row judges & an ai card. throw out the widest card & the closest card & use the other three

Great brainstorms here on an issue we as fans have watched red faced on too many occasions. I don't know about more cards and it may not address the bottom line 800lb gorilla in the room...corruption and the wide swath of random subjectivity. As Tito says there really is no clear definition, guidelines and reinforced adherence to what judging is in the first place. It's a crapshoot on interpretation barring clear obvious wobbles and kds.

Always thought putting a literal face on judges would help. Accountability! Literally stand them ring center same as the ref upon introduction and maybe even at the time of cards being read. May sound a little simplistic but loved when HBO would put a face on judges. And they did a rundown prefight of bigger fights judged. Not a thing wrong with honest scrutiny when an official is in the role of deciding a fighters immediate and long-term career and livelihood.

Another random thing that bugs the old fan in me...the carefree and constant discussion of live betting odds done by the actual network commentators. I know I'm dating myself ;D and online betting is massive now but ffs it's literally in the face of all ringside officials, fighters and anyone within eye or earshot. Happens in live time onscreen, pre fight, between rounds, post fight and seems the most basic temptation in what we all know is, once again, a largely corrupt sport.

I went to put a bet on a boxing match and the owner said the sport is corrupt. He refused to take my money.

I have always thought that for the amateur's, at least, we should find a way to make specialized gloves with sensors that can count the amount of punches that land on an opponent. I know there is A LOT to work out with something like that, but it is worth putting our brains around.

Also, I think there is a time now for instant replay in boxing altogether, pros and ams. For draws we should go back to instant replay and count each blow, or use a system for judging ALL ASPECTS of the round- from aggression to running and not fighting to how many punches did land for each fighter.

Let Dan Raphael score every single fight and give it to the other person. Again not perfect, but the win percentage would be overwhelming.