Boxing Forums banner

Should consensus scoring be used?

1340 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 - 4 of 33 Posts
First Google result is an academic paper on consensus scoring vs. the current system. The authors compared the results of 956 title fights under consensus scoring with the current system, and the think the current system is better.

The paper is here (.pdf): .

The interesting part starts on p.19, some excerpts:

- The good:

Veteran USA Today boxing writer Jon Saraceno (1999) lists the following bouts as "the three worst draws I've seen first hand:" Ray Leonard-Tommy Hearns II, Whitaker-Chavez, and Holyfield-Lewis I.
All three of Saraceno's "worst draws" are resolved by the Majority/NY Systems in a fashion which the public would have approved; they score the fights for Hearns (113-112 on both systems), Whitaker (115-112 on the Majority system, 116-113 on the NY system) and Lewis (115-113 on both systems), respectively
- The bad:

Consider the first Azumah Nelson - Jeff Fenech bout, held in 1991, which ended in a split decision draw with judges' scores of 115-113 Fenech, 116-112 Nelson, and 114-114. Los Angeles Times writers Earl Gustkey and Allan Malamud both disagreed with the decision, as Gustkey had the bout 118-110 Fenech, and Malamud had Fenech "by four points" (Gustkey, 1991; Malamud, 1991). The president of the Australian National Boxing Federation, Peter Burchall, protested the outcome of the first Nelson-Fenech fight, saying, "we feel an unfair decision was rendered" (Unattributed, 1991a).

In response to the decision and the ensuing controversy, WBC President Jose Sulaiman ordered a rematch between Nelson and Fenech (Unattributed,1991b). However, had the Majority or NY System been in use for this fight, there would have likely
been even more uproar following the contest: both systems would have scored the bout 115-113 for
1997 Lonnie Bradley-Otis Grant match. The official scores were 115-113 Grant, 115-113 Bradley,
and 114-114. The Majority and NY systems score this bout 115-113 Bradley. Yet, at the time the
draw verdict was announced following the fight, Bradley seemed to be both surprised and happy to be
given a draw. Indeed, the public sentiment in this bout was that Grant deserved the victory (Todd,
1997; Stubbs, 1997).

Many high-profile fights in our dataset are bouts which, in the eyes of some, were "bad decisions:"
these include Michael Spinks-Larry Holmes II, Marvin Hagler-Ray Leonard, Jose Luis Ramirez-Pernell
Whitaker I, James Toney-Dave Tiberi, Evander Holyfield-Michael Moorer I, Julio Cesar Chavez -
Frankie Randall II, George Foreman-Axel Schulz, Francois Botha-Axel Schulz, Pernell Whitaker-Oscar
de la Hoya, and Oscar de la Hoya-Felix Trinidad. Anyone who was disgruntled with any of these listed
decisions would remain disgruntled, as all of those fights have the same verdict under the Majority/NY

Since our data ends with December 1999 fights, boxing's most recent "bad decision," Erik
Morales-Marco Antonio Barrera (February 19, 2000), was not one of our 956 fights examined. We
obtained the scorecards from that fight separately, from the Nevada State Athletic Commission. This
"bad decision," too, would be unresolved by consensus scoring as the Majority/NY Systems pick Erik
Morales-the controversial winner under the Must system-as the winner (and still champion).

There are several fights in our dataset which were not viewed as "bad decisions" by the public, but
likely would have been if the Majority or NY Systems had been used. As Table 8 reveals, there are
nine unanimous decisions out of these 956 fights in which the Majority/NY systems do not award
the fight to the winner on all three judges' cards
Under the Majority/NY Systems, both these rematches (Whitaker-Rivera II & Johnston-Bazan II) would have resulted in draws, seemingly depriving Whitaker and Johnston of their hard-fought "revenge" against their opponents.
An example of a split decision being "reversed" under the Majority/NY Systems is the Michael Carbajal-Mauricio Pastrana bout. The scores for this bout are in Table 10. Of the decision, Borges (1997) notes that "about the only person who thought Carbajal had won the bout was a judge, because not even Carbajal was willing to argue for himself after it was over."

Yet Carbajal wins the fight 115-113 on either the Majority or NY System scorecard.
- The conclusion:

The question of whether consensus scoring systems would reduce the amount of "bad decisions" in
boxing has usually been answered by pointing to their performance on one or two specific fights (most
recently, Holyfield-Lewis I). However, we find that while the Majority or NY Systems would resolve
three important "bad decisions"-Leonard-Hearns II, Whitaker-Chavez, and Holyfield-Lewis I-in
a manner consistent with public sentiment, the systems would actually induce more "bad decisions."

They would do so either by converting draws into victories that are not consistent with public opinion
of who won the fight (e.g. Azumah Nelson-Jeff Fenech I scored for Nelson and Lonnie Bradley-Otis
Grant scored for Bradley) or by converting unanimous decisions-cases where all three judges agree, in
their scorecard totals, that one fighter on the bout-into reversals or draws. This latter phenomenon
occurs nine times in our 956-fight dataset, including the relatively high-profile Whitaker-Rivera II
(Table 9).
See less See more
If this was used, Calzaghe beat Hopkins something like 9-3.
Exactly 9-3 even, if my count is right:

See less See more
I think it wouldnt make much differebce as corrupt judges would work with that systen as well, and when the judges are just plain wrong,, pac-bradley for example would consensus scoring have still given it to bradley?

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.
See less See more
Please stop with bad / corrupt judging for this fight, Pacman lost fair & square. 115-113 for Bradley
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.
1 - 4 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.