[STEVENSKI]

Given that there's only 3 networks in the US that show boxing, the commissions would be hard pressed to tell HBO, Showtime, or ESPN "no" to granting interviews with judges and having that included in the contracts.

The problem I see is that the judges are "freelance" & are not under a contract to any network. It would be very dangerous ground if judges were under contract to a network as they could fall victim to "Lamplelitis".

I'd also like there to be forensic accountants checking on judges' and promoters' bank accounts when horrible decisions with big money fighters happen.

That would be a great idea.

[salvador]

The problem I see is that the judges are "freelance" & are not under a contract to any network. It would be very dangerous ground if judges were under contract to a network as they could fall victim to "Lamplelitis".

Judges don't have to be paid or hired by the networks. The commissions can still hold that power. The only thing that the networks would be able to do would be to ask them questions when the fight was over.

[STEVENSKI]

Judges don't have to be paid or hired by the networks. The commissions can still hold that power. The only thing that the networks would be able to do would be to ask them questions when the fight was over.

Then why should the judges appear on network TV if they are not going to get paid by the network? If I was a judge I would say sure interview me just give me $5000 each time of GTFO I owe you nothing.

[salvador]

Then why should the judges appear on network TV if they are not going to get paid by the network?

Because the boxing commission that hires them would insist. Basically, any judge who works a televised fight would understand going in that he could be interviewed by the network or he doesn't have to take the job.

The truth is that it should go past networks. Any judge for any fight should be required by the commission to answer questions from the press and that should be in their contracts - even if it's an internet reporter with a video camera. Obviously the judges wouldn't be required to take abuse, just straightforward questions. "Explain your thoughts on this round..."

[Jack 1000]

As I have posted before,

The pattern with bad decisions is that it is almost always the fighter with the better record, household name, or more influential promoter, who gets the call. Changing the scoring system won't produce better results. Getting judges more accountable for the decisions that the render, might.

All officials should be mandated to sign a statement that they be fair and impartial with no preferential bias to any fighter, promoter, or network. Suspicions if any b.s would mandate a commission and/or sanctioning body hearing where they official would be required to explain his scoring in each round, or refereeing in controversial parts of the fight.

A judging tribunal would search for evidence of wrong-doing based on the answers of the judge in questioning. If the appellate review finds no problems, the judge would be considered innocent. If the review board finds issues, the official gets a minimum of a six month suspension from service and gets fined $1000. Second offenses would result in higher penalties, ranging from a six month suspension to a lifetime ban.

The sanctioning bodies have mandatory yearly seminars for the judges. But that may not go fair enough. There should be eye-exams and medical physicals to determine an officials' competency. Aging is becoming more and more of a concern, that could lead to this incompetence. Sadly, the newer officials don't seem to have the experience needed to always judge impartially.

Jack

[daprofessor]

they need to give judges sobriety tests and eye tests.