Has the time come to introduce an official AI judge into boxing?
In the Oleksandr Usyk vs Tyson Fury rematch, the AI judge scored the contest 118-112 to Usyk
The first-ever AI judge was tested last Saturday when Oleksandr Usyk outpointed Tyson Fury in their iconic rematch.
After all three human judges produced identical scorecards of 116-112 in favor of Usyk, it was revealed that AI had scored the contest even wider for the Ukrainian at 118-112.
Unsurprisingly, this scoring was slammed by Fury who said at the post-fight press conference ‘F*** all the computers, keep the humans going. More jobs for humans, less jobs for computers.’
But when you look at things objectively, the AI judge didn’t have a terrible debut, simply because the majority of fans and boxing experts believe Usyk was the rightful victor.
The wideness of the scoring is debatable as it was a competitive fight between two of the best heavyweights in the world.
However, if there’s one thing that lets professional boxing down, is its occasional tendency to award victories to the a-side or home fighter, who have appeared to be soundly beaten.
The perfect example is on the undercard of Usyk-Fury 2 when Johnny Fisher was given a split-decision win over Dave Allen.
Despite winning the early rounds, Fisher was dropped heavily in the fifth and Allen seemed to dominate the rest of the contest - a consensus shared by many in the boxing fraternity.
Yet Fisher, a 25-year-old prolific ticket seller was narrowly favoured by two human judges with scorecards of 95-94 and maintained his unbeaten record.
There was no AI scoring for this bout, but it’s plausible the computer would have had Allen as the winner.
The problem is that Allen produced one of the best performances of his career, after spending the last four or five years in the wilderness by primarily fighting on small hall shows.
Though, instead of being rewarded for a Cinderella-like story, which makes boxing one of the greatest sports - many believe Allen was robbed by inadequate judging.
And, to be clear, that was not Fisher’s fault, who showed tremendous heart to get off the canvas and fight until the final bell.
Instead, it was another questionable decision, which made fans question the integrity of the sport.
Computers don’t have bias or emotions
Whether you think some judges are corrupt or downright incompetent, fans need to put themselves into the mind of a boxing official.
Like the home team in a football match, the a-side fighter always has an advantage, especially when it comes to the decisions made by officials.
How many times have you seen teams in the Premier League be given ‘soft’ penalties or have a player in the opposition get sent off for an innocuous-looking challenge?
Even with the use of VAR, controversial decisions are made almost every week, because there is a human behind the technology.
Humans are affected by the roar of the crowd, besides their own affinity with an athlete, team or organisation.
Therefore, although sometimes shocking, it’s not always surprising to perceive signs of corruption.
Hence why there have been plenty of examples of ‘hometown cooking’ in boxing when the crowd shouts and screams after the home fighter throws a punch or fires a combination.
It doesn’t matter if no leather grazes the skin, it’s not impossible for a human official to be influenced by such support.
In contrast, AI is inherently objective because it uses the information it receives.
Unless AI learns how to feel emotion, it will not favour a boxer because of their status, how much of a cash cow they are, how badly all the promoters want them to win, or how everyone in the arena is rooting for them.
So, in that regard, an AI judge is a step towards improving the morality of boxing and helping to ensure the right boxer emerges victorious.
It also holds human judges accountable because if a person’s scorecard is the complete opposite of what the data shows, it implies they have ulterior motives.
Is it a coincidence that on the night an AI judge was tested, all human judges were uniform with their scorecards?
Of course, an AI judge has only been tested for one bout so far and it needs to be used on several more occasions before it can ever be introduced as an official scoring system.
Boxing is filled with so much politics and is so subjective that there will always be someone not happy with a decision.
Following Usyk-Fury 2, there is still a minority of people complaining about wide scorecards or crying robbery.
In fairness to Fury, it’s not great for humanity if computers get more jobs and leave people with less opportunities.
However, when a boxer's career is on the line and a judge’s decision can make or break a person’s ability to provide for their family, there must be a solution for incompetency.
It's clear to me that in the UK officials are trained to use 10-10 as a way to show a round. Officials in the U.S. are taught to use all of the scoring criteria to decide the winner of a round.
So if clean punches isn't enough to determine the winner of a round, who had better ring generalship, defense, or effective aggression?
Using 10-10 as a scoring mechanism is a cop out; if you can't decide a winner you shouldn't be a judge.
From an AI perspective, it's clear the AI was trained by a UK based officiating crew. Which can only mean future bouts will lean on this non-committal form of judging, which doesn't serve the interest of the boxers.
It was weird that the AI Judge scored it 10 - 10 in rounds 1 and 12.