Quote Originally Posted by powerpuncher View Post
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.