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

[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?

[Xwetie]

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.

[powerpuncher]

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.

[Mark TKO]

Announce the scores every 3 rounds and before the last

[Primo Carnera]

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.

[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.

[Gandalf]

With a gun aimed at each of the judges heads?

[TitoFan]

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.

[p4pking]

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

[powerpuncher]

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.

[Spicoli]

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.

[Batman]

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

[Batman]

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?

[Ron Swanson]

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.

[Master]

I would have 5 judges.