Bad Decisions Bring Judges to Question

[Shark1959]

I watched the Chavez jnr fight with Vera last Saturday night and thought how are these decision's allowed to continue. It was scored unanimous for Chavez with scores of 96-94, 97-93 and 98,92. Come...

[rudee]

Good read Shark... but its nothing to do with ablility...
I am familiar with the judges on the Jr fight... especially the dame.
Judges have been judging for years and years... they know how to judge.
They are simply on the take for the promoters who are setting up a fighter.
They really want to match Canelo and Jr or Canelo and Sergio again.
Get all the pendejos to pay $75 dollars a pop again.

[aquariusone]

The author has explored several scenarios that could influence a judge's decision to award a particular boxer a round. Some of his theories are far-fetched (like CJ Ross scoring against Pacquiao, and in favor of Alvarez, because of "her personal perception of wrong-doing of the disfavoured boxer). I don't buy that at all. All in all the article is just verbal diarrhoea.

Judging criteria, for boxing or any other contest, are fairly specific. The general rule is that every performer being judged is given a perfect record at the very start and then given point deduction for each mistake (or bonus for positive results). Those mistakes are then subtracted from the initial (perfect) score to arrive at a "net score". Those scores are then tabulated at the end of the contest to measure the contestant's performance.

The problem in boxing is that whoever is "perceived to have won a round" is given a 10, while his opponent is scored a 9, 8, or 7 depending on the severity of the outcome of the round or penalties imposed. Each judge is looking at the performance of BOTH combatants "at the same time". And that is what complicates the problem. Perception is influenced by a judge's personal view of effective offence, defence, avoidance, attack, aggression, severity of punches thrown, etc. An excellent judge is entitled to make mistakes with one or two rounds that are very close, but would generally make the correct decision on majority of the rounds.

And that is why there are split, draw, or majority decisions. BUT could ALL THREE JUDGES make the same mistakes? If they do, that is where the STINK is in boxing. No one wants to come out and call it for what it is but everyone may not see a skunk - but could certainly smell it.

How could judging be sharpened? One thing that would eliminate or reduce errors is to have SIX (6) judges in a contest. Three would observe one boxer; the other three would observe his opponent. Judges could score the boxer based on (1) defence - ability to dodge a punch or limit damage from a punch. (2) Offence - ability to hit his opponent, (3) Effectiveness - given a bonus point for power punches connecting. At the end of each round, his "net" score is recorded. The net scores for all the rounds are then tabulated. That would be his PERFORMANCE RATING. It is then compared with his opponent's PR. One with the most points is then declared winner.

The results could form as a measure of a judge's ability and work ethics.