Why does boxing still have three judges scoring a fight?

[Marchegiano]

Expert opinion means more than mass belief.

[RoyJonesJrp4pno1]

This is a simple math problem. 13 rounds makes a draw impossible.

If every round is scored 10-10 then it would be scored as a draw.

There's your impossible draw scenario exposed.

[Combat Talk Radio]

If every round is scored 10-10 then it would be scored as a draw.

There's your impossible draw scenario exposed.

Not possible to score 10-10 in a 10-point-must system. If both guys score a knockdown, you end up with 9-9. But the statistical probability that happens EVERY round is lower than the probability you win the lottery.

[The Gambler1981]

I like half point scoring because you can differentiate between rounds that are close and rounds that are pretty onesided easier. A close round should not be the same as a round where one guy clearly dominates or even clearly wins. A judge should have to judge which is why I hate even rounds and in most situation in boxing while there is some judgement they do not have tool to really judge accurately. It is not perfect but it does allow for some margin, plus it can allow for some judgement on knockdowns which are certainly not all equal.

With that method of scoring I would also go to five judges, knock out the high and low for each round.

If you want to mix in a corruption fix have a pool of 10 judges at each fight and right before the fight pick 5 from that pool. Or if you want to have 5 judge don't knock out high and low and only have 3 judges scores count but don't tell the judges who is actually scoring with those who count randomly picked before the fight.

[KingHippo]

Take away confusing language like ring generalship - just used as an excuse to give a round to a favored fighter. Give the round to the one who hurt the other more. That's it.

Ring generalship is a differentiator and also usually means that one suffered the least punishment. If both fighter are equally hurt, give the round to the one who controlled the pace. Simple.

[YoungManRumble]

Good idea, maybe they should have 10 judges on that night, then choose 3 randomly. Unless the promotion bribes everyone of the 10 judges etc...

I just feel some of these judges already know who they need to favour in any close round.

Some of the judges knows who the house fighter is.

So maybe they shouldn’t even know who they are judging until the bell is about to be rang.

I like that idea even though you see the possible flaw in it immediately also. But if someone was trying the pay them ALL off then I think they'd give up sooner than later if it's costing them over 3 times as much.

[QueensburyRules]

Too much room for corruption. Boxing scoring seriously needs an overhaul.

- -U BigBoys overloaded again?

[daggum]

i have a pretty simple solution. 37 judges for each fight but their vote is based on the electoral system so you might win 21-16 but lose the fight. its only fair that way.

[Curtis Harper]

Well there would be no need for judge's. Only for a punch stat scorer for each fighter.

It also removes any subjective scoring. Nobody watches a basketball game and gives their opinion on which team is winning. There's an official scoring system and scoreboard.

There is no denying when a ball goes through the hoop, though. Refs are there to suss out fouls and to break up those g@y slapfests.

Punches are a different kind of scoring. We are in the 21st century and boxing still has it's training wheels on.

[Curtis Harper]

For one they don’t need to be ringside. Let them watch the fight with a monitor in the back.

Exactly what I suggested in another similarly themed thread. During that minute break, they can rewind and come to the right score.