By Dennis Dodge – The last month or so has seen Judging, once again come under scrutiny and for the call to once again be shouted that something needs to change (It quickly goes away again but it’s a constant that’s there.)
After arguing with my peers on what constitutes a good judge and what scores should be based on, I’ve come to the conclusion that none of us actually have a clue. It’s very difficult to find it written down by any of the organisations (other than AIBA) on what they consider the general scoring criteria and what they prefer to see, so it’s left open to interpretation. Now normally I’d say that this is a good thing, as some of us prefer defensive work, some of us aggressiveness and others on generalities like work rate, style over substance etc. Alas this ‘interpretation’ has led to some ludicrous score lines, (the obvious being Canelo/GGG (I had Canelo by one, but couldn’t argue with GGG, I will argue with that 118 scorecard though, I’ve also seen a shocking decision in Germany and well, look and you’ll spot some too.)
A close card can always be argued for and against the boxer you prefer but some of these score lines have taken the sport into joke territory, and with the Alvarez one, had a real chance to put boxing back on the front pages legitimately after Maysomebody against Connors someat or other dominated for the last few months. Alas it was on the front pages but for all the wrong reasons and once again fans were asking themselves is it worth putting all this time and effort into something that seemingly isn’t as straightforward as it should be.
I’ve seen a lot of ideas put forward by fans, experts and people in general, but the solution is staring us in the face and is as brilliant as it is simple. We can still have 3 judges. 2 should be from different countries where the boxers are differing nationalities, or different parts of the country if they’re the same and the 3rd should be something along compubox’s statistics. I think the 2 judges speaks for itself, it takes away some of the bias that can be levelled at them and as different countries like different styles we could have truly open cards. The 3rd one is something I argued against for a long while until a poster on the 606v2 forum (Milky I think, cheers bud), made the point that ultimately boxing is about hitting whilst not being hit so, therefore, mark up the amount of times boxer a has thrown a punch, take away the amount he’s taken a punch and there’s A’s score, do the same for boxer B and whoever has the highest wins that card.
I personally (well I would) think it’s a good idea but would also add that the judges have to justify their cards as well. Why did X or Y score it widely for boxer B, you may not agree but if a judge explains there’s less likely to be an outcry AND the boxers themselves may sign onto harder fights knowing they’re likely to get a good crack at the whip rather than travel to places such as Germany and the UK (terrible at this time) without thinking they MUST get the KO. Eventually, this would also lead to 35/35 splits with the rest going to the winner and also me being crowned king of the boxing world for bringing up these ideas, but until that day we’ll just have to satisfy ourselves with ranting where we can.
Let me know your thoughts or tear me apart in the comments.