Ok, so we all know there have been some diabolical scoring of fights over the years. The reasons being thrown up ranging from 'home town favouritism', 'corruption', 'flat out stupidity' etc... So I was just wondering if anyone had ever contemplated alternative systems of deciding the winner of fights that go the distance and what your ideas were? More judges? Less judges? No judges? A post fight review board that could overturn judges decision? Maybe combine the amateur shot by shot scoring system with the current one somehow?
Or do you think the current system is fair and working, leave well enough alone?
The computer scoring system has changed and is Better than before, it essentially works on averages so if 5 judges score it
And 5th judge 3 points
What they do is eliminate the low and high score and average remaining 3, in this case 3,4,5 would average as 4 points scored that round, so over scoring or under scoring judges don't count.
It's a better system and does not need the 3 judges pressing within a second, also a judge can take his time and evaluate if a combination all landed meaning you can get 3 points off a judge out of 1 combo which never would have been the case before.
I done a course on it in the stadium, that's how I know this
I would hate to see computer scoring in pro boxing. The guy who lands the most punches is not nececerily the one that dominated the round. I'm sure most pro's would be happy to take a few Pauli Malignaggi shots to land their own
I think computer scoring leads to ineffective punching and throwing single shots as well
They just need to permanently ban any judge that comes out with a terrible decision and then can't sit down and justify their card round by round
When the administering bodies are crooked it's hard to imagine any system could significantly improve scoring. How rounds are scored could be much better defined though. Howard Lederman, Jim Lampley, and apparently some of the judges were creaming themselves over Manny's 'ring generalship' when JMM was leading him around by the nose. Define ring generalship, define 'effective' aggression, and adopt those standards. It'll never be perfect, but more consensus would help.