I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with a few of the statements in this, quite simply because the number of situations that can arise in boxing, and the number of permutations in how a fight can go mean that any set of strict rules in place for boxing would damage, rather than benefit the sport.

For example, Colin Lynes v Paul McCloskey last week. How do you decide which aspect of the four put forward should be weighted heavier or equally when judging a round's score? Looking at one of the earlier rounds, Lynes would focus on throwing flurries to the body, and would be throwing and landing more punches, the majority of these rib-rattlers to the body, but McCloskey was resilient in this area. 1-0 Lynes. Defense. McCloskey would be winning this side of it, dodging a lot of punches, and moving out of reach quite often. Ring Generalship, Lynes was the one standing in the centre of the ring, and making the moves towards McCloskey. 2-1 Lynes. Effective Aggression, McCloskey getting the better shots off, and picking Lynes off coming in. Landing less frequently, but better punches. 2-2.

But the rounds I'm thinking were almost exclusively McCloskey's on the cards, so what I'm getting at is that the removal of discretion of the judges would be bad, not good for the sport, and mean boxers looking to meet criteria in fights, rather than matching their tactics to the opponents, and fighting the best way to win, and trusting the judges to see how the flow of the fight goes. MAybe the answer to this is not placing tighter restrictions on judges, but rather to choose more judges from boxing hotbeds, and less box-ticking by bringing in judges from countries who may not have the best boxing pedigree, simply because they're a member of that boxing organisation.