Not sure this holds, especially given the context of boxing, which is notorious for corruption.

> humans fail more randomly

And often intentionally

Yep. The in-a-nutshell argument for AI is that there's an unusual amount of bias and corruption in boxing judges, who usually determine the victor. The in-a-nutshell argument against is that less subjective scoring systems like punch counting have already been tried as an alternative in Olympic boxing, but fans didn't like the adaptations in style that resulted. (Of course, dropping the punch counting for the 2016 Olympics immediately resulted in subjective judgements that were interesting at best...)

Sure but then you at least have basis to complain instead of “that’s just how the game is now.”

I don't see why we would need to say that, when we can debug and fix the system.