LOL dam you guys are ruthless on here, you went in dry on louis ck, despite his perversions the man is a huge boxing head, he spars and has been following the sport and hanging around gyms for years.
As far as my scoring criteria have you watched that old episode of The Fight Game with jim lampley? they interviewed the one judge from the Pacquiao vs Bradley fight, he said the reason he didnt give the fight to Pacquiao is the old Manny would have finished him so he scored the fight off that he said if this was the old Manny who was ferocious he would have done Bradley in instead he backed out so he had to score against Manny or something of that sort and this guy is a credible long time boxing judge I think his name was duane ford or something like that. He scored the fight with the old Manny in mind is that wrong or not this guy was a judge
I don't follow Louis CK beyond the sexual allegations he's recently been accused of, confessed to and apologized for. He might as well be another Joe Rogan (minus the sexual impropriety) but without the MMA training, TKD background and physique. If Jim Carrey wanted to talk boxing most people wouldn't care how informed he was, or if he was at all. Why? It isn't his profession. His profession is to be a stooge onscreen and he's a damn talented one as an A-list comedic actor.
Being a judge doesn't necessarily make you reputable, either. It just means that you received the necessary training in order to become certified for selection to work fights starting from the bottom and working your way up to title fights (4/6/8/10/12 rds). Just look at Adalaide Byrd if you disagree. Harold Lederman was a judge who started in the 60's and has officially scored over 100 fights including many title fights around the world to his name. He's regularly criticized, to a substantial degree rightfully so, for his unofficial scorecards on HBO (scoring for the aggressor is the most common complaint & having his card too wide in their favor) just as Ross & Ford were widely criticized in the first Pac-Bradley fight. Roth was also criticized but not like them since he narrowly scored it for Pac.
The heavy majority of fans & media "pundits" thought that Ross & Ford got it wrong that night. The majority likely happens to be right more often than the minority. Ever seen "Who Wants to be a Millionaire"? When a contestant uses the "ask the audience" lifeline the majority is far more often right than they are wrong. That's the
majority rules doctrine being applied to assist in answering the question (two heads are better than one & probability). In the first Pac-Bradley fight the
dissenter of the judging panel was seen as correct (as far as who should've earned the nod) by the large majority of fans & media. It's been
the single most referenced "robbery" over the last 5 years. It's also been the boxing industry's gold standard by which other highly controversial decisions are comparatively weighed against to measure how bad the decision was publicly perceived to be.
If you're judging with a fair amount of weight placed on a fighter's style then you'll inherently introduce more subjectivity into your scoring which is a negative, not a positive. As a hypothetical, if two fighters are making their pro debuts and Ford happened to be judging that night knowing nothing about either, how is he going to discern if either fighter is fighting like they normally would/are known for (ie., when they were amateurs or even semi-pros, if applicable)? Styles aren't static they're dynamic for fighters that can employ multiple and switch between them (which is common especially at the highest level in boxing). They can change as part of a strategic gameplan going into the fight and/or change based on in-fight adjustments that are made when that style isn't working or working well enough. Yet, some judges, particularly in Nevada, still have a preference (increased subjectivity at play once again) for a certain style or sub-style. If we're talking the "style of the fight" as to how it's playing out (ebb & flow) then that's a different subject.
