Boxing Forums banner

Should consensus scoring be used?

1339 Views 32 Replies 10 Participants Last post by  scribbs
This is where if two judges score a round to a particular fighter they get the round, if the judges have it Judge 1: Fighter A, Judge 2:Fighter B and Judge 3: Draw then the round would be 10-10 and so on.

For example consensus scoring would have had Chilemba beating Bellew 116:114 and it would have also had Crolla-Mathews a 115-115 draw, both fair scores in my opinion. Should this system be rolled out to mitigate poor judging when some judges hand in almost random scorecards?

If anyone can work out what result consensus scoring would have given in controversial fights stick them in here so we can see if it really works :lol:
1 - 11 of 33 Posts
I think you would still get bad decisions. De la Hoya got a gift against Sturm so he could fight Hopkins. If a consensus was brought in then they (judges) could be swayed to score more iffy rounds to the name / hometown fighter so that a "correct" result could be rendered.

I've had a look at some fighters from the 1890's & there was a lot of iffy decisions around NY due to betting scandals. Shit happens & has been going on since boxing came about.

Quick count: 7-5 Bradley. I don't think you can compensate for bad/corrupt judges by counting their scores differently. The summary execution of judges handing in absurd scorecards would be a more rational way to solve the problem.
Please stop with bad / corrupt judging for this fight, Pacman lost fair & square. 115-113 for Bradley
You're in the minority, Scribbs. Can't see a case for Bradley winning.
Fair do's, I'm in a minority, but the point is that the fight was closer than most people make out. I think it's silly that judges would intentionally fuck over Pacman if there was still a glimmer of hop in making the PBF fight. Cunningham - Adamek 2 was a worse decision imo.
I have to disagree with this, i saw a poll (may have been Boxing News?) where over 90% had Pacquiao winning, i dont see how that can be a win for Bradley
This issue is that 10% or less had Bradley winning or maybe a draw & 2 judges who have the all important vote agreed with this minority. We've debated this before Jamie , but as i've said in response to Bryn, the fight was a lot closer than a lot of people make out. Some were calling it the worst decision ever, give me a break. If peep's have Pacman by a slim margin, then I've no argument but not by 10 points. It annoys me that they are seen as incompetent because decision was against a general consensus, whereas the incompetent elements for me are the wide scores than some have put out.
The fightscorecollector guy only found 1 press score for Bradley, and a couple of dozen wide-ish scores for Pac: . When almost everyone thinks a decision went the wrong way, then it probably did.
For me, it went the right way, for others it didn't, I accept that but there are people who believe Bradley won, it's just a close decision that's contentious not a corrupt fight, that's the point I'm making
Four times with Bradley winning 115-113 x 3, 116-113 x1.

Anyway, I've hijacked this thread from the original debate but using the Bradley fight then I would say no to consensus. That being said I get the point you make in regards to the OP, I think we need to a different scoring system but on the same lines as we have now.

I would go on a rounds system & if a fight was drawn (e.g. 6 rounds each) then go to a points system. A round would be 10-9 for a win, 10-8 for a very dominant round & then extra deducted for knockdowns. It would need some tweaking but as a general blueprint it would be ok, I think. This is how it used to be scored on the rounds basis.
Cunningham-Adamek was certainly worse but both were awful imo. It was one of those fights where I couldn't find 7 rounds to give Bradley.
Like I've said, I know I'm arguing against most of the world on this one. This is the fight that finally made me realise not to take opinions from articles / fight reports / others seriously anymore, to make my own mind up by viewing fights. It makes me wonder on some of the fights through history that I may have scored differentl but will never get the chance due to no film existing. It was a pivotal moment for me in boxing, change my outlook.
HBO commentary was a disgrace in this fight and influenced people, Lampley was calling shots landed by Bradley as shots landed by Pacquiao at points! Was a close fight that could have gone either way. I thought it was mental how people thought it was such a robbery as well.
Yeah mate, That's how I viewd it with lampley. there's a nughugger vid that is/was on youtube that is a bit dramatic but explains it how I saw it. It's history now, time to move on (until another debate brings it up then i'll be off again :patsch:patsch:patsch:patsch:lol:)
I had Pacquaio 10-2 - Bradley didn't land shit untill the last 2 rounds -
learn how to score a fight
Says one of three people in the whole world who scored it for bradley
yeah but the other 2 mattered didn't they? check mate
Only in politics - no one who watches properly listens to judges anymore do they
whats politics got to do with it?
1 - 11 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.