Surreal image of a boxing ring symbolizing fair scoring.

Is Boxing Rigged? How a Simple Scoring Change Could Knock Out Biased Judging

Author's portrait.
Theo Raines in Law & Justice August 2025 • 5 min read.

"A new study proposes a minimalist adjustment to boxing's scoring system that could significantly reduce the likelihood of partisan judges swaying match outcomes."


Boxing, a sport steeped in tradition and passion, has long been shadowed by accusations of biased judging. From amateur Olympic bouts to high-stakes professional clashes, controversies surrounding questionable decisions have fueled distrust and threatened the integrity of the sport. Instances of perceived 'robberies,' where deserving fighters are denied victory, risk alienating fans and deterring athletes.

The core problem lies in the subjective nature of scoring. Currently, judges evaluate each round and assign a score, ultimately determining the overall winner based on their cumulative assessment. This system, while seemingly straightforward, opens the door for manipulation, whether conscious or unconscious. Partisan judges, influenced by personal biases or external pressures, can subtly skew their scores to favor a particular fighter.

However, new research offers a promising solution: a simple yet effective adjustment to boxing's scoring methodology. This tweak, grounded in social choice theory, has the potential to diminish the influence of biased judges and restore a sense of fairness to the sweet science. By focusing on round-by-round victories rather than overall scores, boxing can minimize the impact of individual biases and ensure that the most deserving fighter emerges victorious.

The 'Majority Rounds Rule': A Fairer Way to Score Boxing?

Surreal image of a boxing ring symbolizing fair scoring.

The proposed solution centers on a concept called the 'majority rounds rule.' Instead of relying on judges' overall scores, the winner would be determined by who wins the majority of the rounds. Under the current scoring system, bouts are scored on a per-judge basis. Each judge scores each round individually and then awards their entire 'vote' to the boxer who wins a majority of rounds. The bout is then awarded to the boxer receiving votes from a majority of judges. A minimalist adjustment would be for each round to be awarded based on the aggregate scores over all judges. Whoever wins the majority of rounds wins the bout.

Imagine a scenario where three judges are scoring a 12-round fight. Under the current system, a single biased judge could strategically award rounds to their preferred fighter, ensuring that their overall score aligns with the desired outcome. However, under the 'majority rounds rule,' that same judge would need to consistently influence the scoring of individual rounds, a far more challenging task, as there is significant coordination required with other judges. Each round would need to be affected, not just the final score.

Here's how the 'majority rounds rule' aims to level the playing field:
  • Reduced Influence of Individual Bias: By focusing on round-by-round victories, the system dilutes the power of a single judge to manipulate the overall outcome.
  • Coordination Problem for Partisan Judges: Biased judges would need to consistently coordinate their scoring with other judges to sway individual rounds, making manipulation more difficult and detectable.
  • Increased Transparency: Round-by-round scoring provides a clearer picture of who is actually winning the fight, reducing the ambiguity and controversy that often plague current decisions.
The researchers behind this proposal emphasize that it represents a subtle yet significant change to the existing system. It doesn't require a complete overhaul of boxing's scoring infrastructure but rather a shift in how judges' scores are aggregated and interpreted. This minimalist approach increases the likelihood of acceptance among boxing fans and officials, who may be resistant to more radical alterations.

A Knockout for Fairness?

The 'majority rounds rule' offers a compelling path towards mitigating biased judging in boxing. By reducing the influence of individual biases and promoting greater transparency, this scoring adjustment could restore faith in the sport and ensure that victories are earned, not gifted. As boxing navigates the challenges of maintaining its integrity in the modern era, innovative solutions like the 'majority rounds rule' are essential for preserving the spirit of fair competition.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

1

What is the primary issue affecting boxing's integrity that the proposed scoring change aims to address?

The main problem is biased judging, where judges may unfairly influence match outcomes due to personal biases or external pressures. This leads to controversies and undermines the sport's credibility. The current scoring system's subjective nature makes it susceptible to manipulation.

2

How does the 'majority rounds rule' differ from the current boxing scoring system, and what is its intended impact?

Instead of judges assigning overall scores, the 'majority rounds rule' determines the winner by who wins the majority of the rounds. This reduces the impact of individual biased judges because they would need to influence the scoring of individual rounds consistently, requiring coordination with other judges. In contrast, under the current scoring system, each judge scores each round individually and then awards their entire vote to the boxer who wins a majority of rounds. The bout is then awarded to the boxer receiving votes from a majority of judges.

3

What are the key benefits of implementing the 'majority rounds rule' in boxing?

The 'majority rounds rule' offers several benefits including reduced influence of individual bias, because the system dilutes the power of a single judge to manipulate the overall outcome. Furthermore, it creates a coordination problem for partisan judges, as they would need to consistently coordinate their scoring with other judges to sway individual rounds, making manipulation more difficult and detectable. It also increases transparency as round-by-round scoring provides a clearer picture of who is actually winning the fight, reducing ambiguity.

4

What makes the 'majority rounds rule' a practical solution for boxing, considering potential resistance to change?

The 'majority rounds rule' represents a subtle yet significant change, not a complete overhaul of boxing's scoring infrastructure. This minimalist approach increases the likelihood of acceptance among boxing fans and officials, who may be resistant to more radical alterations. Its focus on adjusting how scores are aggregated and interpreted, rather than changing the entire system, makes it a practical and more palatable solution.

5

What implications would adopting the 'majority rounds rule' have on the perception and future of boxing?

Adopting the 'majority rounds rule' could significantly enhance the perception of fairness and integrity in boxing. By mitigating biased judging, it would restore fan confidence, attract more athletes, and ensure victories are earned, not gifted. This innovative solution preserves the spirit of fair competition and addresses a long-standing issue threatening the sport's future. It ensures that judging is based on the collective view of who won the rounds.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.