Could Mauricio Sulaiman be on to something with his petition for six judges?

The latest left field shout from the WBC President might not be such a bad idea

It is the latest unorthodox idea to come from the WBC’s long serving President Mauricio Sulaiman. A last-minute request has gone out to Sulaiman’s fellow boxing boards for a never-before-seen judging system of a team of six, given the magnitude of the event of the first ever four belt undisputed heavyweight title fight between Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk.

Given a prior history of the creation of ‘diamond belts,’ ‘franchise champions’ and extended periods of ‘champions in recess’ for the likes of Jermall Charlo, such statements from the WBC now tend to be met with groans more often than appraisal. But on this occasion could there actually be something worth exploring?

Inadequate judging is without a doubt the biggest smear that the sport of boxing has against its name. Unlike other sports where criteria is set out in black and white regarding how points are scored, boxing is subjective and nuanced. Ring generalship, better establishment of the jab, clean shots, power punches, body shots, work rate, effective aggression, defence and counter punching all come together to create a complex myriad of how one can score a bout. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, we have also seen time and time again that those entrusted with judging these characteristics are at times to put it plainly, entirely incompetent.

Other sports such as football are often criticised for their incessant desire for innovation, with technology and rule adaptations constantly being rolled out to improve the game, yet in boxing we seem to have the antithesis of this issue, with any suggestion of change tending to fall on deaf eyes.

What makes this matter all the more serious for boxers however, aside from the obvious added physical dangers, is the dramatic effect a poorly scored bout can have on one’s future career, eventual legacy and of course career earnings.

One need only to take a look at the events of just this past Saturday, March 16th in Las Vegas, where the ferocious rising Mexican star William Zepeda busted up and ran through the brave brit Maxi Hughes over four rounds, to see the different paths that a bad decision can see ones career take.

In Hughes previous outing, he looked a clear winner, outboxing one of the divisions top names in former undisputed champion and Australian warrior George Kambosos. Deserved victory here would have likely sent the classy southpaw into a world title fight, potentially even against the legendary Ukrainian Vasily Lomachenko, providing the perfect final stanza in what would have been a Cinderella story of a career. Instead, Hughes was on the wrong end of an awful decision, and then forced to take whatever opportunity he was lucky enough to see come his way.

That opportunity came in the form of being the B side against one of the most fearsome and avoided prospects in William Zepeda, for likely fractions of the purse than had he beaten Kambosos. Given the former IBO champions lack of firepower, in spite of his skilful outside boxing, this one always looked like a stylistic nightmare given Zepeda’s relentless pressure, work rate and power. Following this one-sided defeat, Hughes now finds himself very much on the outside looking in when it comes to world level. If he still has the appetite to continue, which following the gutsy showing he claimed he does, he will now in all likelihood be forced to undertake the role of gatekeeper for further prospects. How different things should have been.

How can one forget about one of the worst decisions we have seen on UK soil between Josh Taylor and Jack Catterall? Had the widely considered clear decision win have been announced for the Mancunian southpaw, he would have had his name ingrained in the history books forever as one of very few undisputed champions, and teed up a multimillion-dollar payday in his next fight. Instead, following controversial defeat, he has seen his name drift almost into irrelevancy with two tick over fights in the following two years, with the likes of Teofimo Lopez, Devin Haney and Ryan Garcia now far superseding both himself and Taylor as the leading stars at Super lightweight. Catterall will never get such an opportunity for all four belts again.

Future hall of famers Gennady Golovkin and Vasyl Lomachenko have also been widely considered to be robbed of career defining victories over Canelo Alvarez and Devin Haney respectively.

So this leads us back to Sulaiman’s latest innovative idea. Under the current scoring system of three judges, the reality is these consistent wrong decisions, often on the biggest of stages, aren’t going to go away.

Is expanding the number of judges to six going to solve this? One could argue you are simply increasing the amount of incompetence, however you would hope by expanding the sample size of what should be highly experienced judges, you are decreasing the chance of a wrong decision.

It may not be the saving grace to this seismic problem, however hopefully it will start to initiate a conversation over alternative ways to ensure bouts have the best possible chance to reward a deserving victor. Boxing is subjective, and there will always be disagreements, but sometimes wrong decisions are unexplainable by a theory of pure subjectivity.