Scoring Fights From Your Living Room Is Unreliable

[marbleheadmaui]

And what of the ringside situation where the action is in an area that one judge is behind the back of a fighter and cant see or behind the ref and they cant see who or whats landing?

Two thoughts. One is that is why there are three judges from different sides of the ring and second, that is why sound also sometimes matters.

I am NOT arguing rings judging is perfect. I am arguing it is a sufficiently different experience that we should not be surprised when it leads to different scoring. I would also say ringside judging is what we've always had and I see no other superior option that we should change it to.

It is faaaar from perfect, and just because we always had it doesn't mean we shouldn't amend it. I say keep two ringside, and stick one in a room by himself with a tv without sound. Make replay available to ref and judge so they don't fuck up imporant calls like knockdowns ruled as slips, vice versa, and cuts being caused by headbuts as opposed to punches. Also we can know when judges are biased or maybe even in the pockets of promoters when they're scoring is different from everyone else it seems including press row, since usually they have a similar angle on the fight. Like how the hell did one judge have williams up 119-109 in the first martinez fight, dudes blind, I don't care if you watched that fight from space thru a telescope no way did martinez just win one round of that fight. Well rant over...lol

I don't know how you put people in a booth unless one can do 100% of all fights that way. One can make a real argument that all three judges being that way might be the best way, but until we can afford it for everyone? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think replay etc is a seriously bad idea in a sport in which fitness and recovery time matter. I mean how long do you give someone to change the ref's call? When do the corner's get notified? What happens if the truck takes too long to find the best shot or has cameras placed in places where they have no shot?

I have a MUCH better idea on the cuts issue. Revert back to the way it was for 100 years. A cut is a cut, get over it and keep going or you lose.

[Violent Demise]

No doubt scoring from home and from ring side are very different. But it don't matter if he's scoring from home, ring side or from some terrible stream that freezes every 2 seconds chances are Violent D's score card is scored the right way

[marbleheadmaui]

Excellent points. And I enjoy the atmosphere of watching a fight in person much more than watching it on TV. However....

1. Being there live doesn't always give you the best angle. Sometimes the fight moves away from you, and happens on the other side of the ring. Also, the ref can obscure your view, and there are no different camera angles to shake off the ref.

2. There are always several cameras available to record the action from the best possible angle. Plus closeups can afford a view you just can't get from several rows back.

3. Replays and slow-motion.... the ULTIMATE tools to judge fights.

Muting your TV can help eliminate the broadcasters' bias or misguided comments, 'cause admittedly many times they do more harm than good.

Thanks for your thoughts but I REALLY disagree with a couple.

1. All this does is reinforce my point about why the perspective is so different.
2. This is TERRIBLY poisonous because SOMEONE ELSE IS DECIDING WHAT THE "BEST VIEW" IS! Why in some cases would we see one angle and why in some cases another? It is inconsistent, arbitrary and most importantly, someone else imposing their view on your judgement.

3. The most terribly poisonous of all. Someone else deciding what's important and now emphasizing it. Unless you watch the ENTIRE fight this way? It is terribly warping of one's perspective.

Like I said... nothing like watching fights live and soaking in all the atmosphere. I've been to several over the years, and will attend many more, given the opportunity. However, that being said....

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Especially ringside, when you're actually BELOW the fighters. Once they move to the opposite side of the ring, you've lost all useful visual contact. Personally, I like to be seated a bit ABOVE the fighters. For MY money, it's the best angle. And yet, television coverage is superior as far as just getting a good view. That there's someone else deciding what the best angle is at a particular moment? Yeah... so what? Hopefully they're trained professionals, not just some bozos behind the cameras. A lot goes into the production of a televised fight event. Cameras are placed at key and strategic places... it's not just random.

And how can replays and slo-mos not be good? I don't know about you, but I'd rather give the producers AND the fans some credit and that the right exchanges are being replayed. Not to mention the benefits of replaying controversial shots like low blows, or cuts that could have been caused by either a punch or a headbutt.

I don't even think it's a close argument. But...... to each his own.

I agree it isn't a close argument.

Relying on media technicians for deciding what the best view is and changing it over time brings far more variables into the equation than being ringside. More variables in an already subjective sport is a bad idea, isn't it? And who the hell decides how "professionally trained" the techs are making these broadcast decisions?

Looking at only CERTAIN things on replay can completely distort things in terms of emphasis and what is important. I mean if you and I watched a round and then were asked to provide a replay of the five most useful seconds in the round for scoring? We'd choose a different five seconds A LOT!

The best seat in the house? probably a seat suspended slightly above ringside just outside the ropes. But that's just not workable. The next best? A direct, unmediated experience from ringside. Next? A mediated experience with who knows who making the mediation decisions and who knows what criteria they are basing it on. In my experience? The shots they choose is based at least as much as what they caught impressively as what they caught that was important to the fight itself.

[marbleheadmaui]

No doubt scoring from home and from ring side are very different. But it don't matter if he's scoring from home, ring side or from some terrible stream that freezes every 2 seconds chances are Violent D's score card is scored the right way

Nobody I know of would question that. And those who did in the past are buried along a secluded beach here on Maui.

[Andre]

And what of the ringside situation where the action is in an area that one judge is behind the back of a fighter and cant see or behind the ref and they cant see who or whats landing?

Two thoughts. One is that is why there are three judges from different sides of the ring and second, that is why sound also sometimes matters.

I am NOT arguing rings judging is perfect. I am arguing it is a sufficiently different experience that we should not be surprised when it leads to different scoring. I would also say ringside judging is what we've always had and I see no other superior option that we should change it to.

It is faaaar from perfect, and just because we always had it doesn't mean we shouldn't amend it. I say keep two ringside, and stick one in a room by himself with a tv without sound. Make replay available to ref and judge so they don't fuck up imporant calls like knockdowns ruled as slips, vice versa, and cuts being caused by headbuts as opposed to punches. Also we can know when judges are biased or maybe even in the pockets of promoters when they're scoring is different from everyone else it seems including press row, since usually they have a similar angle on the fight. Like how the hell did one judge have williams up 119-109 in the first martinez fight, dudes blind, I don't care if you watched that fight from space thru a telescope no way did martinez just win one round of that fight. Well rant over...lol

I don't know how you put people in a booth unless one can do 100% of all fights that way. One can make a real argument that all three judges being that way might be the best way, but until we can afford it for everyone? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think replay etc is a seriously bad idea in a sport in which fitness and recovery time matter. I mean how long do you give someone to change the ref's call? When do the corner's get notified? What happens if the truck takes too long to find the best shot or has cameras placed in places where they have no shot?

I have a MUCH better idea on the cuts issue. Revert back to the way it was for 100 years. A cut is a cut, get over it and keep going or you lose.

A small tv screen in front of every judge at ringside for when they cant see.

[erics44]

you could totally turn the op around and give the same reasons why it is more reliable to score from your living room

[badr_hari]

you could totally turn the op around and give the same reasons why it is more reliable to score from your living room

agreed.

[TitoFan]

Excellent points. And I enjoy the atmosphere of watching a fight in person much more than watching it on TV. However....

1. Being there live doesn't always give you the best angle. Sometimes the fight moves away from you, and happens on the other side of the ring. Also, the ref can obscure your view, and there are no different camera angles to shake off the ref.

2. There are always several cameras available to record the action from the best possible angle. Plus closeups can afford a view you just can't get from several rows back.

3. Replays and slow-motion.... the ULTIMATE tools to judge fights.

Muting your TV can help eliminate the broadcasters' bias or misguided comments, 'cause admittedly many times they do more harm than good.

Thanks for your thoughts but I REALLY disagree with a couple.

1. All this does is reinforce my point about why the perspective is so different.
2. This is TERRIBLY poisonous because SOMEONE ELSE IS DECIDING WHAT THE "BEST VIEW" IS! Why in some cases would we see one angle and why in some cases another? It is inconsistent, arbitrary and most importantly, someone else imposing their view on your judgement.

3. The most terribly poisonous of all. Someone else deciding what's important and now emphasizing it. Unless you watch the ENTIRE fight this way? It is terribly warping of one's perspective.

Like I said... nothing like watching fights live and soaking in all the atmosphere. I've been to several over the years, and will attend many more, given the opportunity. However, that being said....

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Especially ringside, when you're actually BELOW the fighters. Once they move to the opposite side of the ring, you've lost all useful visual contact. Personally, I like to be seated a bit ABOVE the fighters. For MY money, it's the best angle. And yet, television coverage is superior as far as just getting a good view. That there's someone else deciding what the best angle is at a particular moment? Yeah... so what? Hopefully they're trained professionals, not just some bozos behind the cameras. A lot goes into the production of a televised fight event. Cameras are placed at key and strategic places... it's not just random.

And how can replays and slo-mos not be good? I don't know about you, but I'd rather give the producers AND the fans some credit and that the right exchanges are being replayed. Not to mention the benefits of replaying controversial shots like low blows, or cuts that could have been caused by either a punch or a headbutt.

I don't even think it's a close argument. But...... to each his own.

I agree it isn't a close argument.

Relying on media technicians for deciding what the best view is and changing it over time brings far more variables into the equation than being ringside. More variables in an already subjective sport is a bad idea, isn't it? And who the hell decides how "professionally trained" the techs are making these broadcast decisions?

Looking at only CERTAIN things on replay can completely distort things in terms of emphasis and what is important. I mean if you and I watched a round and then were asked to provide a replay of the five most useful seconds in the round for scoring? We'd choose a different five seconds A LOT!

The best seat in the house? probably a seat suspended slightly above ringside just outside the ropes. But that's just not workable. The next best? A direct, unmediated experience from ringside. Next? A mediated experience with who knows who making the mediation decisions and who knows what criteria they are basing it on. In my experience? The shots they choose is based at least as much as what they caught impressively as what they caught that was important to the fight itself.

Let's start from there (bolded). I think you're looking way too deep into the camera angles. Boxing is a fast-moving, extremely dynamic sport. The best TV can do is set cameras at different angles, and train their personnel to switch cameras in an attempt to always have the "broadside" view of the fighters, one on the left of the screen, one on the right. If that's done correctly and swiftly, you got the best "seat" in the house. Meanwhile, the blokes at the fight depend on how the boxers move and when. At some times, they'll be lucky enough to get the broadside view. At others, they'll unfortunately be watching the back of one of the fighters, a linear view if you will, rather than the broadside, or penpendicular view.

I really think there's nothing more that needs be said.

[ICB]

I totally disagree you can score fights easier watching it on the tv, especially if you got a nice 40 inch tv.