![](https://wbcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/Splitdecisions.jpg)
By Barry Lindenman
Some split decisions are inevitable because 100% agreement 100% of the time is impossible. It’s hard enough to get three people to agree on what toppings to put on a pizza let alone agree to the winner of a boxing match every time. I will add this too. Just because there is disagreement, it doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is right or someone is wrong.
There is even a term used to describe when this happens. It is called “The Rashomon Effect,” based on the 1950 Academy Award winning film directed by Akira Kurosawa in which a crime involving four individuals is described in four mutually contradictory ways. The term refers to the effect of the subjectivity of perception on recollection, by which observers of an event can produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it. That being said, not all split decisions are created equal. There are “good” split decisions, “bad” split decisions and “ugly” split decisions.
In the first split decision example below, judge # 3 would appear to be the “lone wolf” as they were the only judge who scored the bout for fighter B. On the surface, it would appear that judge # 3’s score would be the most criticized. However, I would argue that although they agreed with judge #1 in awarding the fight to fighter A, judge #2’s scorecard is the one that should be examined more closely. Although they chose different winners of the fight, the scorecard of judge #1 is actually closer to the scorecard of judge #3 than it is to judge #2 who actually agreed with judge #1 in terms of who won the fight. Despite choosing different winners of the fight, the scores of judge #1 and judge #3 agreed that the fight was very close. The scorecard of judge #2 would seem to indicate that they saw a fight that wasn’t that close.
In the second split decision example below, all 3 judges saw the fight as a one-sided affair. Judge #1 and judge # 3 both saw fighter A as being the clear winner of the fight as their scores disagreed by only 1 point. Judge #2 also saw the fight as a one-sided fight. However, by virtue of their score, judge #2 obviously saw a totally different fight than did judge #1 or judge #3 as they overwhelmingly scored the fight for fighter B. Once again, because of being the “lone wolf” judge in the scenario below, the scorecard of judge #2 would be heavily criticized.
Finally, we come to what I would call a “legit split.” Some rounds are just that close that can be scored for either fighter. It is clear from the tightness of the numbers below that all 3 judges saw the same fight (i.e. a VERY close fight). Boxing judges are human beings and human beings are entitled to have differences of opinion. A split decision like the one portrayed below should be expected and accepted from time to time. There is a way to resolve very close split decisions like the one shown below. Can you say “rematch?”
test