The Blind Eye of Boxing: Can AI Be the Solution to Human Error?

The recent controversy surrounding Dimeji Shittu’s defeat at the Commonwealth Games has brought to the forefront one of boxing’s most enduring problems: inconsistent and subjective judging. Pundits, boxers, and fans alike are outraged over the perceived robbery, leading some to call for artificial intelligence (AI) in the sport to improve transparency and integrity.

Human judging is inherently subjective, with judges’ opinions often influenced by personal biases, past experiences, or cultural backgrounds. This was evident in Shittu’s bout, where Ankush Panghal was awarded the majority of rounds despite appearing to land fewer punches. AI could potentially mitigate these issues by providing an objective assessment of a fighter’s performance.

However, punching power is still an imprecise science, making it difficult for AI to accurately determine the impact of a punch. Moreover, boxing requires human intuition and experience, which can’t be replicated by algorithms alone. As Delicious Orie noted, “Would AI be able to determine the power of a punch? Are all punches equal?” These are crucial questions that need addressing before implementing AI in boxing.

Introducing AI into the judging process raises concerns about accountability and responsibility. Who would ensure the accuracy and fairness of the AI system? The governing bodies, the fighters themselves, or perhaps both? The lack of transparency surrounding such a system could lead to more problems than it solves.

Boxing has a long history of controversy surrounding judging decisions. From the infamous “Thrilla in Manila” bout between Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali to the 2017 bout between Anthony Joshua and Carlos Takam, human error has consistently plagued the sport. While AI may offer hope, its introduction would not be a silver bullet.

World Boxing is exploring AI in judging, but this move should be met with caution. President Gennadiy Golovkin has expressed interest in implementing AI to improve transparency and integrity, but as Orie noted, “If I knew there was a specific set of scoring then yeah, bring AI.” However, until such a system is developed and implemented, it remains unclear whether AI can truly address the problems plaguing boxing.

Ultimately, introducing AI into boxing would require a multifaceted approach that addresses both technical aspects and human elements. Rather than relying solely on technology to solve its problems, the sport should focus on developing more effective training programs for judges, increasing transparency in scoring decisions, and promoting better communication between fighters, coaches, and officials.

Shittu’s defeat serves as a stark reminder of boxing’s deeper issues beyond judging errors. It’s time for the sport to reassess its approach to officiating, rather than relying on AI as a quick-fix solution. Only then can boxing truly move forward, leaving behind the controversies that have come to define it.

Examining the complexities involved in implementing AI in boxing reveals why this solution may not be as straightforward as it seems. Caution and careful consideration are necessary to ensure that the introduction of AI does more good than harm.