If one or more judges submit a call that goes beyond the scope of reason, with a card so incredibly retarded, require a review hearing to explain their scores and they must attend before they can judge again AND the committee must accept their reasoning for the scores before they can judge again. If the review board does not like their response they are banned for six months and must take training seminars before the board will consider their request for a new license.

On the second offense and they cannot explain their scores they are banned for life.

Any evidence found by the review board of any judge taking kickbacks, bribes, or under the table dealings results in an automatic lifetime ban.

Jack

Sounds great.

Is this something proposed by you for discussion on this board, or is this something thats really being proposed?

I like it... But what would the guidelines be?

If I judged the PWill-Margarito fight and gave 10 rounds to Williams, would that be called for review? It was a competitive fight, but you can argue that Williams won 10 CLOSE rounds.

Note that this is just my own idea. But if I get enough positive feedback over the next couple of months I will submit this to the Association of Boxing Commissions. I am looking for input on how to establish criteria. Exactly what StyleZ said. That would be something that would have to be studied. Establishing parameters and guidelines for what conduct is considered bad enough to go before a review board? Not to mention, who sits on the review board?

Jack

Thus, the hearing to hear an explanation. I think it would be great for the completely ridiculous cards.

Think about just a FEW of the stupid cards of the past that could have been used:

Gale Van Hoy from Diaz-Malignaggi I: 118-110 Diaz
Jose Guerra from Hagler-Leonard: 118-110 Hagler
(Referee) Harold Valan from Ellis-Patterson: 9-6 Ellis (and the referee was the ONLY judge!)
Robert Paganelli from Burton-Augustus I: 99-90 Burton


I'm glad I keep a personal scoring database, containing all of my own scorecards (an example as seen in my sig) and notes regarding other scorecards, ridiculous decisions, Lederman/HBO cards, etc.

There are so many decisions through the years that were completely inexplicable.

Jack, I LOVE the idea of a review board. The issue would be creating the impartial review board! I think perhaps a handful of highly knowledgeable writers/fans...


I'll go ahead and volunteer. Jack, you're in too.

I think criteria should include the DISPARITY between judges.

If 2 judges have it close and another is way off, even if he is on the winning side... it should be looked at.

One of my favorite bizarre cards is from Angelo Poletti from Duran-Leonard I in 1980.

He had the fight 3-2 Duran.... and TEN ROUNDS EVEN!

Absolutely stupid.

The fact that a system similar to this does not already exist speaks for itself. Of course I would support it. There should be a system to review every fight: the ref, the scoring, the corners.

its actually one of the best ideas that ive heard in a long time for the better of the sport... you should propose this to the boxing board jack 1000...

I don't think it will work. The people they are going to have to explain it to are probably the ones that are also in on it (and been paid) to score fights a certain way.

It's really not a difficult problem to fix, and the idea been put forward is probably the most logical, it's just that they don't want it to get fixed as they gain other benefits.

I used to think the same way and the idea of a review board seemed like the only way to get rid of one of the sports controlling concerns.

It is not difficult to dissent with calls that don't go the way that we see it, but it occurs every time, and it shouldn't disappoint us. Different judges look for different things, and even though we would love for them to be objective (no picnic) they are going to make the call the way they see it ( and favor whoever they want ).

It happens even in our judicial system, certain judges are more lenient or harsher with different things, it is human nature. Heck sometimes I see a fight twice and notice things I wasn't able to see the first time.

When I see some scoring that is completely off from what I'm scoring I need to remember that I'm being subjective too, and sometimes even swayed by the commentators (that is another topic altogether).

If there is no way to reconcile the fight with the scoring then the judge is just being like Simon lol.

But seriously, there are still some remarkably controversial and debatable calls. But that's exactly what they are...debatable.

Scoring is subjective, unless you're ko'd or completely dominated .