Is AI Judging Good For Boxing?

In a high-stakes rematch that took place last weekend, AI judging in the Tyson Fury vs. Oleksandr Usyk fight has become a controversial topic. Fury expressed his disapproval of AI, preferring human judges over technology. The AI judge scored 118-112 in Usyk’s favor, while human judges went with 116-112. This has led to questions about AI’s role in boxing, sparking mixed reactions from fans and experts.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in sports judging, particularly in boxing, has stirred quite the conversation within the sports community. In a recent encounter between Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk, AI was used to score the rematch, resulting in a contentious debate over its efficacy.

The AI judge scored the fight 118-112 in favor of Usyk, differing from the human judges who unanimously scored it 116-112 for Usyk. Fury’s outspoken criticism of the AI score highlighted a broader skepticism about replacing human judgment with computerized systems in boxing, a sport deeply rooted in subjective scoring traditions.

This introduction sets the stage for understanding how AI judging is not just about technology infiltrating sports but also about the tension between technological advancement and preserving the human element in sports officiating.

How will AI boxing judges work?

Ahead of the Fury vs Usyk 2 matchup, Turki Alalsikh said, “For the first time, an AI-powered judge will oversee the fight,” was part of what Turki wrote in his Instagram post.

“This pioneering experiment will not affect the official results,” The details are the big question, as they have not yet been revealed. According to Forbes, it is said to be Jabbr, a company specializing in AI-powered statistics for combat sports.

However, this has yet to be confirmed and there could be another company involved in the Riyadh event.

Would AI judging solve some suspicious boxing results?

The use of AI to assist in judging boxing matches has introduced a new dimension to an age-old sport, sparking debates on its appropriateness and accuracy. In the recent rematch between Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk, AI scored the fight 118-112 in favor of Usyk, contrary to the human judges’ decision of 116-112, which was unanimous.

This divergence in scoring has led to discussions about the viability and reliability of AI in such subjective arenas, especially given Fury’s own belief that he had won by three rounds. The boxing community, including fans and experts, are divided, with some praising AI for potentially offering a more objective view while others express concerns over its lack of nuance and human understanding in judging what is often seen as an art rather than a science.

Prominent voices in the sporting world have shared their perspectives on the impact and future of AI judging. UFC legend Michael Bisping initially described AI judging as an innovative approach but later voiced concerns over the potential for technological manipulation.

Similarly, machine learning engineer Allan Svejstrup highlighted the technical challenges associated with implementing AI in boxing, such as difficulties in assessing subjective elements like “ring generalship.” Despite these challenges, the proponents argue that AI could eventually bring consistency and reduce human bias to the sport, although this comes with the risk of oversimplification.

Public opinion has shown the wide range of reactions to AI in officiating boxing events. While some social media users advocate for its impartiality and argue that AI makes fewer errors than human judges, others are quick to point out its limitations, especially in judging a sport that thrives on complexity and subjectivity.

The humor and sarcasm in online forums further illustrate the skepticism towards AI, as users jest about AI’s immunity to bribery or its potential to create a homogenized fighting style that adheres strictly to quantifiable metrics. Tyson Fury’s retort, filled with expletives, reflects a sentiment shared by many traditionalists who feel that AI might strip boxing of its human element. As AI technology continues to advance, the future implications for boxing and sports officiating are significant.

READ MORE: Is boxing corrupt?

Conclusion

There is potential for AI to become more widely adopted across various sports, which could redefine the roles of human judges. Concerns regarding job displacement, as expressed by Fury, are echoed by others who fear technology may encroach on positions traditionally held by humans.

Fighters might also begin tailoring their strategies to align with AI scoring, emphasizing clear, quantifiable actions while potentially neglecting the intricate artistry of boxing. Despite potential benefits in achieving fairness and reducing bias, AI judging opens up new discussions about manipulation and bias within the algorithms themselves.

The apprehension over AI’s role will likely necessitate regulatory oversight and raise ethical questions about the balance between human and machine input in sports judging. Furthermore, the ongoing technological race may see increased investments in AI solutions within the sports industry, altering the market landscape, betting practices, and viewer engagement.

Resistance from traditionalists who cherish the sport’s historical and cultural roots could spur debates about the essence and future direction of boxing.