Would boxing gain a lot more fans if it did away with three judges deciding outcomes?

[4truth]

5 judges, one card for title fights. Scoring each round separately.

[mrlopez]

I propose 5 judges. 3 ringside, 2 in private booths watching without commentary.

[DuckAdonis]

That's the whole premise of using knockdowns to score a fight. There's no need to judge who is "dominating" a round.

The analogy I would use is hockey. One stat often cited during a game is "shots on goal". A team can "dominate" by out-shooting the other team and creating scoring chances. But the other team with an all-star goalkeeper can still win 1-0 if it scores the only goal of the game. Imagine instead if judges were used to determine who should have won. "Well, they were outscored but still dominated the remaining 59 minutes so let's give it to the team that got shutout."

So no knockdown means a draw. Runners who don't commit to their punches will have a harder time earning wins. Their records will show a high number of draws. Conversely, hometown fighters will no longer be able to rely on the assistance of bribed judges.

Well I don't like the idea tbh with you man..but it would make for alot more exciting fights I bet!

[DuckAdonis]

Yeah I like the 5 judges idea and to remove some of the subjectivities they should come up with this system

For example: If 3 (Majority/5) or more judges give a particular round to a fighter he wins the round by default. And this goes for every round. This way it's more decisive which fighter won wich round and we should get a more fair result.

For Wilder vs Fury-
Round 1: 10-9 Wilder (All 3 judges)
Round 2: 10-9 Fury (2 judges)
Round 3: 10-9 Fury (2 judges)
Round 4: 10-9 Fury (2 judges)
Round 5: 10-9 Fury (all 3 judges)
Round 6: 10-9 Fury (2 judges)
Round 7: 10-9 Wilder (2 judges)
Round 8: 10-9 Fury (2 judges)
Round 9: 10-8 Wilder (all 3 judges)
Round 10: 10-9 Fury (all 3 judges)
Round 11: 10-9 Fury (all 3 judges)
Round 12: 10-8 Wilder (all 3 judges)

Result of the fight:
Tyson Fury wins by a margin of 114-112

So yes I think this system is better and removes a bit of the biases when there is 1 awful judge. Of course with 5 judges this system would be even better. The judges actually deciding the round instead of the outcome can make a big difference as you see here. Wilder would have lost to Fury 114-112

[DuckAdonis]

With this majority method these fights would play out like this

Lomachenko vs Salido: Salido wins by margin of 115-113

Harrison vs Charlo: Harrison wins by margin of 115-113

Canelo vs Golovkin 1: Golovkin wins by a margin of 115-113

Mayweather vs Pacquiao: Mayweather wins by margin of 116-112

Golovkin vs Jacobs: Golovkin wins by margin of 114-113

Canelo vs Lara: Canelo wins by margin of 115-113

[jas]

it is a myth that boxing isnt more popular because of bad decisions

thats just talk from delusional , emotional or ignorant people who are not living in the real world

in reality, 99.9% of fans are casual and dont know much about boxing, and if they happen to stumble upon boxing on tv they'll watch it , they otherwise only make a conscious effort to tune in to watch a handful of fighters.

[jas]

lol at the 5 judges suggestion

if the problem is that judges are bad, then adding more judges makes the problem worse...

the average standard decreases...

if you wanted to improve the situation in the short-term then having less judges is better, preferably just one who knows what he is watching.

long-term there needs to be more scrutiny to get rid of bad judges and effort to find better judges , could increase pay for judges to incentivize people to become good at judging