Must boxing verdicts be biased?

A model of judgment made by sports judges is outlined. Its main assumptions are as follows. (1) From the beginning a judge tries to form a hypothesis about which of the two competitors should be awarded the victory. (2) The advantages of both competitors are assessed, and these values are changed according to successive observations. (3) However, the meanings assigned to successive actions are not impartial: the greater the initial advantage of one competitor, the more his gains are enhanced and his losses de‐emphasized. Both statistical analysis of judgments made at a boxing championship and in a special experiment with boxing judges revealed several regularities which seem to fit the outlined model, including a pervasive primacy effect. This effect seems to be a consequence of early preselection of the potential winner and a subsequent one‐sided processing of sequentially presented information. Possible ways of avoiding partiality in boxing assessments are briefly discussed.