Would an improved scoring system reduce "dodgy decisions"?

[mnmc10]

how about 5 judges and then get rid of two of the most off scores.
like

j1 10-9 boxer a
j2 10-4 boxer a
j3 10-6 boxer a
j4 10-8 boxer b
j5 10-9 boxer b

j2 and j3 are obviously watching a different fight while the others viewed it the same.

boxer b wins!

[Kev]

how about 5 judges and then get rid of two of the most off scores.
like

j1 10-9 boxer a
j2 10-4 boxer a
j3 10-6 boxer a
j4 10-8 boxer b
j5 10-9 boxer b

j2 and j3 are obviously watching a different fight while the others viewed it the same.

boxer b wins!

It just wouldn't work. What if the two wider judges gave it to the same guy whilst 2 of the remaining 3 gave it to the other guy? So on guy wins on three cards but loses on two, although two of his winning cards are wider than the other 3 so they don't count. So even though he wins 3 cards out of five he loses because two of the judges felt he won more decisively than the other judges, what kind of logic would that be?

Here's a scenario based on 5 judges for Cotto Clottely.

Judge 1 114-113 Clottey
Judge 2 115-112 Cotto
Judge 3 116 -112 Cotto
Judge 4 116-112 Cotto
Judge 5 114-113 Clottey

According to your logic here who would win? Would they throw out the two 116-112 scores and so rule Clottey the winner by split decision even though he got only 2 of the 5 votes or would they remove the two 114-113 scores for Clottey in which case Cotto wins by a unanimous decision and the problem you sought to avoid has only been exageratted further, you see if two scores are clearly wrong but the third score is closer to the clearly wrong scores than the two 'correct' scores then the correct scores would get thrown out and the undeserving fighter wins by an even bigger unanimous decision.

Not that I thought Cotto was undeserving I think he deserved to win I'm just highlight how having 5 judges wouldn't make the situation any better at all and possibly a whole lot worse.

[mnmc10]

Here's a scenario based on 5 judges for Cotto Clottely.

Judge 1 114-113 Clottey
Judge 2 115-112 Cotto
Judge 3 116 -112 Cotto
Judge 4 116-112 Cotto
Judge 5 114-113 Clottey

According to your logic here who would win? Would they throw out the two 116-112 scores and so rule Clottey the winner by split decision even though he got only 2 of the 5 votes or would they remove the two 114-113 scores for Clottey in which case Cotto wins by a unanimous decision and the problem you sought to avoid has only been exageratted further, you see if two scores are clearly wrong but the third score is closer to the clearly wrong scores than the two 'correct' scores then the correct scores would get thrown out and the undeserving fighter wins by an even bigger unanimous decision.

youre right i guess making it a 5 judge decision will only make things worse.

based on your example judges 1 and 5 agrees that clottey won while judges 3 and 4 for cotto judge 2 is for cotto so cotto wins!

what i was hoping for a 5 judge system was to weed out judges who didnt scored the fight accurately. it doesnt matter if one judge scored it with a huge margin like 115-110 as long as another judge scored similar like 115-111