Єlmer♣Fuddstien™
New member
2 recent fights. Direll v Froch and Haye v Valuev. The judges from the Direll-Froch debacle would have undoubtedly had Valuev winning by 5 points, the judges from Haye v. Valuev would have undoubtedly had Direll winning by 5 points. Should the judges declare to each boxer what impresses them most? That way the boxers can adjust accordingly. Or perhaps another method of determining judges be adopted? For example, 1 judge likes the sweet science of boxing, 1 judge likes the guy coming forward, even tho he's swinging like a sissy and missing, and one judge that goes "down the middle" and awards a 10-10 round unless there's a clear-cut winner. For example, a "down the middle" judge would have Haye and Valuev tied in every round except the 12th, in which Haye won easily.
There just seems something inherently wrong about waiting for a decision and praying the judges know what they are doing.
There just seems something inherently wrong about waiting for a decision and praying the judges know what they are doing.