Boxing needs more judges ...?

Question

right now, there are 3 judges scoring the fight and i don't think 3 is enough. a fight can look totally different depending on where you view the fight from because they offer different views. 5 judges can help solve bad judging. they can put a judge on all 4 sides instead of 3 and the fight one from an elevated position or a replay capability. it sucks when bad judging gets in the way of a good fight.

Answer 1

There isn't enough room around the ring with all the commission officials and media. Aside from the 3 judges on each side they also have the time keeper. Plus more judges means more money for the commission who already take way to much.

I think the best thing to do is what has been talked about, dropping 1 round in championship fights. Then there isn't anyway possible for a draw. However they can all still s***w it up and give the wrong guy the win. But it would eliminate the draws!

You did make some good points that could possibly work but i doubt it would happen. Good thinking.

(NOTES)

                 I think they should let Duane Ford from Vegas go. He is involved in more contreversial fights then any other judge. He cost JMM his fight and many other fighters. Keep an eye on his judging. Maybe they should bring in new judges?

Answer 2

It all would end up in the same results, trust me. If there are 3 or 5 persons judging the fight doesn't matter. Even the 3 judges see the same fight and sometimes have totally different opinions. The more judges the more confusion at the end.

I can also compare it to the courts of law. In my country we have courts with 3 and courts with 5 judges. Te result is always the same but the courts with 5 judges take way more time for the decision and these judges argue each others heads of.

I think three of the is enough.

Please excuse any grammar errors, but english is not my first language.

Answer 3

no need!

Answer 4

There should be 3 judges

Judge 1: The doctor, he decides which boxer took the most damage for each round.

Judge 2: The compubox, this gives the accuracy of total punches, jabs, and powershots each boxer had for each round.

Judge 3: A movie director, he or she decides which fighter delivered the best action, suspense, drama, for each round.

Answer 5

I had the pleasure of being what i think they called a ghost judge(judge in training) or something like that at the Florida State Gold Gloves competition  a few years back and that's the way they worked it there.......one judge for each side of the ring.........each judge was told to score only clean punches that they could see from their perspective............it really was amazing when i compared my scrores to some of the others but like you said.........the scores could vary greatly between judges because they would see the boxing match much differently since they are sitting in different spots around the ring..........not sure the general public would understand when the scores are read that they could be legit and vary that much.........I think to them it could appear that the judge has been bought out by one of the promoters..........i do think with 4 "good" judges on each side that it would produce a better/more accurate representation of what actually happened in the fight.......but how do we get 4 good ones when they can't even find 3 good ones alot of times.

to bad they don't have a boxing commission to oversee all of boxing............then they could punish judges for obvious bad decisions and also put in a set group of trusted judges that would travel to all big matches........

Answer 6

don't think boxing needs more judges, boxing needs better judges.... a few weeks ago Christian Mijares clearly won his title fight but one judge had him losing every round. luckily the other two judges got it right and gave him the victory... we need better judges

Answer 7

I will admit that something needs to be done about bad judging, but that would be difficult to address. It's difficult to address, because judging is based on opinion, which is something you can't prove as fact.

I'm not quite sold on more judges being the answer, since it would be possible to have three out of five bad judges for a fight, which would once again be based on awful opinions. It think having more judges would simply reduce the chances of having those unpopular draws.

Perhaps using the amateur scoring method would help, but then there would still be controversy with that. Where as you know the amateur scoring is based on connected punched, you'd have some people complaining about which is better, landing more punches or avoiding the punches and countering? At least with amateur scoring you would know why a fighter won or lost the match, but it still wouldn't make it fair, especially if the loser avoided most of the punches, but was simply beaten because the other guy landed two or three mosr shots.

Basically, I don't know of a full proof method of judging a fight without a bad decision EVER happening again. Though, I do agree something should be done..... I just don't know what at this time.

Answer 8

I have to agree with francis d. there is no need for extra judges just ones who do their jobs correctly