The Single Biggest Issue Facing Bad Officiating in Boxing Is? And Why?

[Jack1000]

I always hear when their are really bad decisions in boxing, from either refs or judges, they are usually broken down into one of three categories:

Incompetence

Favoritism

Corruption

Here is my take on each issue:

Incompetence: It happens with officials who do not have the experience to judge or ref fights. However, I believe that if most fights could be attributed to incompetence, you would have almost a 50/50 split with "stupid" votes going to journeymen fighters and the other half of the time, marquee fighters not getting the nod. If incompetence was the issue, we would be seeing more fighters with weaker records getting the benefit of the doubt from officials.

Favoritism: In my view, the biggest problem in boxing. Judges often lean for the hometown fighter, the undefeated fighter with the big name, or the boxer with a flamboyant and powerful prompter and too often fear the consequences when they don't. Ref Octavio Meyran defended his officiating in the Douglas-Tyson fight over the controversial "long" count incident. Don King, Jose Sulaiman of the WBC, wanted Douglas stripped because they could not stand the idea of a 42-1 long shoot winning over the at the time best P4P fighter in the world. When Octavio Mayran was NEVER assigned to another high profile fight something just did not seem right with that decision. The scoring of the two Japanese judges carding a draw, and having Tyson a point ahead and the negative attitude the powers that they took toward Buster for those 36 hours or so before everyone agreed he was champion, show political bias that can not be forgotten.

Corruption: It's been in boxing since the beginning of time. Do you think it is just as rampant as it was in the 50's-60's when the mob controlled boxing? What specific instances of proven corruption have you seen in boxing that go beyond incompetence or Favoritism? You can go back to Jake Lamotta's sworn testimony for his fight against Billy Fox, where he told a Senate sub-committee that he had thrown the fight and had to, to get a shot at Marcel Cerdan. Does boxing have a new kind of mob with the alphabet federations, Arum and King, non-respected weight classes?

How do you prove corruption in boxing to get a conviction in a court of law?

Jack

[Michael Matos]

After U.S. Olympic women’s boxing trials, Tyrieshia Douglas to turn pro

By Amy Shipley, Published: February 19

SPOKANE, Wash. — There were no tears from the District’s Tyrieshia Douglas late Saturday night, no somber emotions after her hopes of competing in the first Olympic women’s boxing tournament in London ended with resounding defeat.
Douglas, who a decade ago landed in juvenile detention for street fighting and then used boxing as a means of redemptive escape, perhaps not surprisingly threw punches until the very end — even beyond the end.






In a sports bar not far from the ring in which she had been eliminated from the U.S. Olympic trials in women’s boxing in the championship round, Douglas, 23, dissected her six bouts in the flyweight class here and the long year she had toiled leading up to it.
Her words registered like the flurry of jabs and hooks she had fired earlier that night at Houston’s Marlen Esparza, whom the judges ruled had prevailed in a 32-17 decision.
“I’m not sad,” Douglas, 23, said. “I’m not upset about my results. The fix was already in. I’m going pro. I’m not staying around for another four years for the politics and all the other stuff.”
Added Douglas: “They already had, when we came out here, who they wanted to win. I wish they would have let me know that, because then I would have turned pro.”
Like in figure skating and other judged sports, attacking the judges’ scores in boxing can be a sport itself, especially on the amateur side. In Olympic boxing, fights go four rounds only. Like Douglas, her coaches disputed the lopsided nature of the margin Saturday, but neither Calvin Ford nor Mack Allison backed the claim she made immediately after the bout that she should have been the victor over Esparza, a six-time national champion who has lost just once in the last decade.
Douglas, who began boxing at the Headbangers’ Boxing Team gym in 2004, said she thought the winners had been predetermined. That opinion, she said, came from various things she heard from various officials and intuition based on the weeklong event’s progression. The three women who on Saturday claimed the Olympic team slots — Esparza, Queen Underwood and Claressa Shields — all went undefeated during the week. All fought from the winners’ bracket.
The scoring all week “was ridiculous,” Douglas said. “But when it’s all said and done, I don’t wish those ladies anything but the best. I hope they bring home the gold.”
Douglas made her frustration with the score plain after the fight, turning her head and wrinkling her nose at her coaches when the final tally was announced. Esparza, who led 6-5 after the first round; 14-10 after the second; and 26-14 after the third, said she sensed Douglas had run out of steam in the last two rounds.
Indeed, Esparza fought just three times to win the Olympic team slot while Douglas, who lost Tuesday, fought six times in six days. Had she defeated Esparza on Saturday , she would have had to beat her again Sunday to earn the Olympic position.
“It’s what every boxer is going to say when they lose,” Esparza said. “She definitely didn’t think she won. That is ridiculous. She didn’t even hit me in the last two rounds.”
The debate might never be settled in Douglas’s mind, but she figures she can lay down some more decisive victories once she begins fighting as a professional. Before ordering chicken and French fries off the bar menu Saturday night, she vowed to be back practicing by Monday and ready to fight professionally as soon as it could be arranged.
“By the time they turn pro,” Douglas said of her amateur rivals, “they will have to fight me to get the world title.”

That article was in the paper here yesterday and I've see douglas fight a few times here in the local area, she's a decent boxer.

The article touches on a couple of points and I highlighted them in bold. First of all as the winner pointed out the loser always thinks they won and therein lies half the dilemna. When you ccut down to the chase the main beef with judging is that they disagree with YOU. Thats the main bone of contention when it comes to judging, it can be wrapped up in incompetence, and influence and corruption but what one is really saying is that they saw the fight and they know who won, so therefoe when the three judges disagree with what you saw you ahve to find a eason why. They must be incompntent, they must have been influenced, they must have been corrupted. A two point fight is now cause for microscopic inspections of the scorecards, three scoprecards you could cover with a paper plate is now proof that judges are corrupted.

Corruption:
It's only three ways to fix a fight, either one fighter has to know the fights fixed, or both fighters know the fights fixed, or neither fighter knows the fight is fixed. Bear that in mind the next time you watch a fight and think the judges decision is the result of coruption, think about the fight you saw, were either of the fighters dogginig it, were both dogging it or did bth of them fight. It's easy to identify all three, we don't have to concern ourselves with the first two we do have to concern ourselves with the third. If neither fighter knew and gave a good fight you have to ask yourself who fixed the fight and why and depending on who that someone is why didn't they tell the fighter that he couldn't lose a decision. See when you ask yourself more questions and allow yourselves to do the dirty work instead of getting your knickers in a twist because you disagree with a judge or judges then you will see that a corrupt/fixed decision a lot of times is a figment of the imagination.

Incompetence:
We're on to something here One of the side effects of having 90+ world champoins and somewhere upwards of 175 title fights a year and thats over 500 judges chair you have to fill. Along with an increase of the pool of Boxing champions so is there an increase in the pool of championship judges and the increase in numbers is not commnsurate with an increase in ability to judge a fight, they lack the experience, they lack other senior judges to learn from and they no longer have the luxury of being eased into championship judging. You had two judges doing the Cloud fight that had one championship fight between them. Eveybody has to do their first fight but you don't put them with another judge who has only had one, you safeguard yourself and let him cut his teeth along with two experienced judges which serves two purposes. It affords a security blanket with the two other judges to get a decison that fairly represents the fight that took place but more importantly it allows the inexperienced judge to be able to compare himself to someone with much more experience.

Referee's

If you watch fights from the 90's back you notice that the referee is hardly in the picture, now it seems you can't get rid of him, he's everywhere. A lot of that comes from whiny fighters and the fact that there are no safeguards in place for the referee, corners no longer respect a referee and I think that weighs heavily on a referees mind when making decisions and not major ones either I think it alters the way that some fights are fought and that referees go out of their way to placate corners over fear. Also the same theory of judges hold true for referees, due to lack of experience and the fact that you absolutely need a ref it's going to lead to inexperienced refreree's in the ring and the decisons he makes.

[Jack1000]

Corruption:
It's only three ways to fix a fight, either one fighter has to know the rights fixed, or both fightes know the fight fixed, or neither fighter knows the fight is fixed. Bear that in mind the next time you watcha fight and think the judes decision is the result of coruption, think about he fight you saw, were either of the fighters dogginig it, were oth doging it or did bth of them fight. It's easy to identify all three, we don't have to concern ourselves with the first two we do ahve to concern ourselves with the third. If neither figter knew and gave a good fiht you ahve to ask yourself who fixed the fight and why and depending on who tht someone is why didn't they tell the fighter that he couldn't lose a decision. See when you ask yourself more questions and allow yourselves to do the dirty work instead ofgetting your knickers in a twist because you disagree with a judge or judges then you will se that a corrupt/fixed decision a lot of times is a figment of the imagination.

Incompetence:
We're on to something here One of the side effects of having 90+ world champoins and somewhere upwards of 175 title fights a year and thats over 500 judges chair you have to fill. Along with an increase of the pool of Boxing champions so is there an increase in the pool of championship judges and the increase in numbers is not commnsurate with an increase in ability to judge a fight, they lack the expereince, they lack other senior judges to learn from and they no longer have the luxury of being eased into championship judging. You had two judges doing the Cloud fight that had one championship fight between them. Eveybody has to do their first fight but you don't put them with another judge who has only had one, you safeguard yourself and let him cut his teeth along with two experienced judges which serves two purposes. It affords a security blanket with the two other judges to get a decison that fairly represents the fight that took place but more importantly it allows the inexperienced judge to be able to compare himself to someone with much more experience.

Referee's
If you watch fights from the 90's back you notice that the referee is hardly in the picture, now it seems you can't get rid of him, he's everywhere. A lot of that comes from whiny fighters and the fact that there are no safeguards in lace for the referee, corners no longer respect a referee and I think that weighs heavily on a referees mind when making decisions and not major ones either I think it alters the way that some fight are fought and that referees go out of their way to placate corners over fear. Also the same theory of judges hold true for referees, due to lack of experience and the fact that you absolutely need a ref it's going to lead to inexperienced refreree's in the ring and the decisons he makes.

Great stuff, Michael!

Jack

[Remus]

Great posts. I particularly agree with the part of the referee which I don't think is as widely discussed as it should be.

i would also add a point to you're 3 Michael which is Perspective. I mean this in a metaphorical sense. To cut it down to the brass tacks, some judges reward the guy that presses, some guys only reward the press if it fits their definition of "effective aggression". Some judges consciously say the champion is in front unless proven otherwise, some guys give them equal billing. Some guys consider ring generalship, some guys reward non contact effectiveness, (slipping, stepping etc), some guys are faroe closely aligned to the amateur ranks of scoring shots only. I could go on...

And apart from corruption

[O-Dogg33]

I'd have to lean towards incompetance as the main cause as well. I'd like to think that I'm not naive when it comes to boxing but to me it seems like "fixing" the fights and paying off the judges seems so hard to get away these days and that if it actually happened in a big fight that someone would pick up on it right away and we'd all know. As much as I hate the DLH-Trinidad decision I don't believe Don King had the judges in his pockets. I just believe the judges were morons.

Also I think the judges may get influenced by home crowds a lot of the times. Whether it's for a fear of pissing them off or just being swayed by the cheering I think they tend to favor the home fighter and will score the close rounds for him. I remember reading some study in Sports Illustrated done on the effects of home crowds on officiating in the NBA, NFL, etc. and they found that there was absolutely a correlation that refs favored the home crowds.

[Michael Matos]

Great posts. I particularly agree with the part of the referee which I don't think is as widely discussed as it should be.

i would also add a point to you're 3 Michael which is Perspective. I mean this in a metaphorical sense. To cut it down to the brass tacks, some judges reward the guy that presses, some guys only reward the press if it fits their definition of "effective aggression". Some judges consciously say the champion is in front unless proven otherwise, some guys give them equal billing. Some guys consider ring generalship, some guys reward non contact effectiveness, (slipping, stepping etc), some guys are faroe closely aligned to the amateur ranks of scoring shots only. I could go on...

And apart from corruption

I agree. It's the interpertation of the judges as to who is dancing to the others tune. The classic boxer vs puncher fight, is the boxer making the puncher chase or is the puncher making the boxer move?

[Jack1000]

I'd have to lean towards incompetence as the main cause as well. I'd like to think that I'm not naive when it comes to boxing but to me it seems like "fixing" the fights and paying off the judges seems so hard to get away these days and that if it actually happened in a big fight that someone would pick up on it right away and we'd all know. As much as I hate the DLH-Trinidad decision I don't believe Don King had the judges in his pockets. I just believe the judges were morons.

I think overt fight fixing for the reasons above would be harder to do than the other things. And let's say that Arum, King, or whoever was convicted of fight fixing. Seriously, what would happen to them? Because they are so powerful, they would just appeal their sentence. And likely win. Everyone forgets King's involvement with killing two men. The first, justifiable homicide and the second, stomping a man to death over a $600 debt, with the second offense successfully reduced by his attorneys. See Wikipedia "Early Life:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_King_(boxing_promoter)

If King could get away with murder, he could get away with fixing a fight. But as Michael points out, you have to look at all of the evidence before first. Who fixed the fight, and why? Who was in on the take, and who wasn't, and why? And even if those two judges were in Don's pockets, you would need more evidence than two insane scorecards for a conviction.

I believe and you may agree or disagree on this, or not be sure. But when boxing sees a reprehensible decision and the stories of journeymen and long-shots can't get a fair shake on the cards, fighters with undefeated records getting rounds, undeserved, or the referee favoring to the fighter who is supposed to win, that the economic, political, and social structure of boxing may go back to possibilities of corruption, more often than we fans of boxing like to admit.

If it is incompetence, why aren't we seeing these less experienced judges giving the fighters with the loser records, with lesser known promoters behind them close rounds?

It may be perception, but it seems like far too often the guy with the bigger name, better record, better promoter, or the massive crowd behind him gets all the breaks.

I would like to see what so often does not happen. Harsher consequences for judges who fuck up. And some way that the Texas boxing commission has to face some sort of consequences for the two judges in the Cloud-Campillo fight who scored for Cloud, and don't forget the controversy with the same commission over the Chavez-Rubio fight.

Almost nothing ever gets done. What good are rules without responsibility? What good are rule violations without sanctions? It's a funny word, "sanctions." Normally the word implies some sort of punishment or calling out for wrong doing. But in the case of all of the alphabet federations, "sanction" usually means to approve a fight.

Rules, Responsibilities, and Consequences in boxing are often very ambiguous, and that leads to many of the problems facing our sport.

Jack

[Michael Matos]

Jack I havethis little book of lists by Bert Sugar and Teddy Atlas and it gives a list of the 12 most controversial decisions so I researched the judges and have done the first three fights. Check this out.

12. Angel manfredy SD12 over Julio diaz, judges Mark Nelson and Bill Clancy vote for Manfredy.
Mark Nelson, starts judging fights in Minnesota exclusively for first 10 years of judging, first fight outside of Minnesota is Winky Wright SD12 over Bronaco Mckart for WBO 154 itle, Two judges have Wright up by 2 points, Nelson has McKart up by 3. 2 fights later he's off to Germany as a WBO judge for a Darius titledefense, back o Minnesota for a year and he's sent off to Germany again where he judges the Loewe-Carruth WBO welterweight title bout, 2 judges see Loewe the winner by 1 and 6 points respectively, Nelson has the fight a draw. Judges in Minnesota for another year before getting the Manfredy-Diaz job. Rides out the rest of his judging career in the midwest and gets female flyweight title fight in Japan. My take on Nelson-Never ready for Primetime.

Bill Clancy: Clancy is the other judge who scores Manfredy over Diaz. If records I saw are correct Clancy's first fight ever judged is NABF cruiserweight title fight in Canada, 13 fights later he gets an IBF interim title fight, his next fight is Montell Griffin-Eric Harding won by Harding via split decison, Clancy has Griffin winning by 2, the other two judges have Harding by 2 and 4 points respectively. Clancy hen spends 2 years judging 4 and 6 rounders in North Carolina before getting the Manfredy-Diaz gig. After Manfredy-Diaz he doesn't judge a fight for two years and his first job back is David Tua vs Rahman and he is the only judge seeing Tua as the winner, he has Tua winning by 4. Is currently working the 4 and 6 round circuit in North Carolina/Virginia/Maryland. My take on Clancy, not ready for Primetime and somebody likes the way he judges.

11.Lupe Pintor SD!% over Carlos Zarate, judges Art Lurie and Harold Buck vote for Pintor.
Art Lurie: Lurie had been judging for 20 years before Pintor-Zarate, Las Veagas Judge. 20 years is a lot to pick from but I'll concern myself with the timeframe around Pintor-Zarate. Lurie is the only judge who votes for Ali over Spinks, two fights later he has Pintor over Zarate, he has Leonard up by a whopping 6 points over Benitez two fights after that, judges three more fights two ko title deenses of Larry Hlomes and a middleweight fight Hagker over Hamsho. Then dissapears for 6 years, first fight back is a WBC heavyweight title fight Berbick over Pinklon Thomas, ery next fight is Terrence Alli-Boza Edwards, he's te only judge who sees Alli he winner, two fights late gets Duran-Robbie Simms, he's the only judge who votes for Duran. My take on Lurie-Likes the popular fighter.

Harold Buck: Buck was a sometimes judge was a judge for Ali-Patterson and Dick Tiger title defense against Roger Rouse. Doesn't judge for another 7 years, as soon as he returns he gets high profile fights, is a judge for Ali-Spinks I along with Lurie, following that his title fight jobs were WBC ttles, he hasn't judged since 1983. My take on Buck: Call when needed.

10 Pernell Whitker D!@ Chavez sr. Judges Mickey Van and Franz Marti vote for Chavez.
Mickey vann-Longtime judge, always found him reliable, really can't explain it.
Franz Marti-His third job as a judge is a WBc welterweight title fight, 14 of his next 18 jobs are WBC title fights, is allmost exclusively a title fight referee judging fights for all organizations, is still judgiung today almost exclusively in Thailand. My take on Marti: Was fast tracked for a reason.

A little look behind the numbers so to speak. I hink you can see that Nelson and Clancy were out of their depth, Luire looks to be the judge who likes the name and his judging is slanted twards the headliner, the typical knock on Vegas judges even back then, Buck was a favorite son and Marti seems to be all of the above rolled into one. I'll study the rest of the list later.

[Jack1000]

Jack I havethis little book of lists by Bert Sugar and Teddy Atlas and it gives a list of the 12 most controversial decisions so I researched the judges and have done the first three fights. Check this out.

12. Angel manfredy SD12 over Julio diaz, judges Mark Nelson and Bill Clancy vote for Manfredy.
Mark Nelson, starts judging fights in Minnesota exclusively for first 10 years of judging, first fight outside of Minnesota is Winky Wright SD12 over Bronaco Mckart for WBO 154 itle, Two judges have Wright up by 2 points, Nelson has McKart up by 3. 2 fights later he's off to Germany as a WBO judge for a Darius titledefense, back o Minnesota for a year and he's sent off to Germany again where he judges the Loewe-Carruth WBO welterweight title bout, 2 judges see Loewe the winner by 1 and 6 points respectively, Nelson has the fight a draw. Judges in Minnesota for another year before getting the Manfredy-Diaz job. Rides out the rest of his judging career in the midwest and gets female flyweight title fight in Japan. My take on Nelson-Never ready for Primetime.

Bill Clancy: Clancy is the other judge who scores Manfredy over Diaz. If records I saw are correct Clancy's first fight ever judged is NABF cruiserweight title fight in Canada, 13 fights later he gets an IBF interim title fight, his next fight is Montell Griffin-Eric Harding won by Harding via split decison, Clancy has Griffin winning by 2, the other two judges have Harding by 2 and 4 points respectively. Clancy hen spends 2 years judging 4 and 6 rounders in North Carolina before getting the Manfredy-Diaz gig. After Manfredy-Diaz he doesn't judge a fight for two years and his first job back is David Tua vs Rahman and he is the only judge seeing Tua as the winner, he has Tua winning by 4. Is currently working the 4 and 6 round circuit in North Carolina/Virginia/Maryland. My take on Clancy, not ready for Primetime and somebody likes the way he judges.

11.Lupe Pintor SD!% over Carlos Zarate, judges Art Lurie and Harold Buck vote for Pintor.
Art Lurie: Lurie had been judging for 20 years before Pintor-Zarate, Las Veagas Judge. 20 years is a lot to pick from but I'll concern myself with the timeframe around Pintor-Zarate. Lurie is the only judge who votes for Ali over Spinks, two fights later he has Pintor over Zarate, he has Leonard up by a whopping 6 points over Benitez two fights after that, judges three more fights two ko title deenses of Larry Hlomes and a middleweight fight Hagker over Hamsho. Then dissapears for 6 years, first fight back is a WBC heavyweight title fight Berbick over Pinklon Thomas, ery next fight is Terrence Alli-Boza Edwards, he's te only judge who sees Alli he winner, two fights late gets Duran-Robbie Simms, he's the only judge who votes for Duran. My take on Lurie-Likes the popular fighter.

Harold Buck: Buck was a sometimes judge was a judge for Ali-Patterson and Dick Tiger title defense against Roger Rouse. Doesn't judge for another 7 years, as soon as he returns he gets high profile fights, is a judge for Ali-Spinks I along with Lurie, following that his title fight jobs were WBC ttles, he hasn't judged since 1983. My take on Buck: Call when needed.

10 Pernell Whitker D!@ Chavez sr. Judges Mickey Van and Franz Marti vote for Chavez.
Mickey vann-Longtime judge, always found him reliable, really can't explain it.
Franz Marti-His third job as a judge is a WBc welterweight title fight, 14 of his next 18 jobs are WBC title fights, is allmost exclusively a title fight referee judging fights for all organizations, is still judgiung today almost exclusively in Thailand. My take on Marti: Was fast tracked for a reason.

A little look behind the numbers so to speak. I hink you can see that Nelson and Clancy were out of their depth, Luire looks to be the judge who likes the name and his judging is slanted twards the headliner, the typical knock on Vegas judges even back then, Buck was a favorite son and Marti seems to be all of the above rolled into one. I'll study the rest of the list later.

Thanks Michael,

I want to print this list out for reference. Good job.

Jack

[Remus]

Could we add another one...viewpoint ? I believe it was eugena williams who admitted afterwards that she fucked up the 5th round cos she could not see anything apart from lennoxs back.

[Michael Matos]

Could we add another one...viewpoint ? I believe it was eugena williams who admitted afterwards that she fucked up the 5th round cos she could not see anything apart from lennoxs back.

Thats another point. I've noticed watching fights that judges don't have set viewing procedures, some fights I've seen the judges head is just about peering over the ring apron, other fights they are sitting up high, others seem to sit at a little desk thingy.

[O-Dogg33]

Really at this point in time don't you think it would make more sense for judges to watch the fight from a monitor and score? That way they get an unobstructed view point for the whole fight. I know being ringside is supposed to capture more of the speed and power of the punches actually being thrown and landed but it seems being able to watch a fight from one vantage point would be more of a handicap.

[Remus]

People watch fights now with no pressure, no time limit, infinite replays, angles and stats, and in a close fight there are still disputes on who won. I only referred to the Williams comment cos I recall her scoring that round for Holyfield and I was in utter disbelief.

If we are satisfied that the decision is not rigged, satisfied that the ref does his job and satisfied the judges are competent, independent and professional, should we not then be satisfied with the result ? Regardless of whether or not the judges "got it wrong" on the night. If they get it wrong and all those conditions have been met, I'm ok with that. What incenses us is if we believe we have been cheated or a muppet made a bad call.

[Michael Matos]

People watch fights now with no pressure, no time limit, infinite replays, angles and stats, and in a close fight there are still disputes on who won. .

Paralysis by analysis. I never watch a replay, one and done. Don't need to go back and see if maybe Kid Candle won the fifth round or Joe Palooka the sixth. If one takes time so any theories ccan beebunked, my favorite is that 12 round fights give us more disputed decisions and draws than 12 round fights. Nah not true but nobody thought that one out because to win a 12 round fight you have to beat the man by two rounds 7-5. In a 15 round fight you only have to beat him by one round 8-7. I think judges were more accountable n a 15 round fight because there re less permutations of the score, it was only one way to get a 143-142 scorecard and that was to score the fight 8-7, 144-141 was 9 rounds to six, 144-143 was 7 rounds to 6 with 2 even. Can you fiure out 115-114 with no knockdowns or deductions, or 116-11 with a couple of knockdowns. All you need is an announcer to say he scored that last round 10-8 even though there wasn't a knockdown and the poor judge who has the audacity to score it 10-9 is worthy of an investigation.

All that aside the crux of the whole discussion is a whole buncch of people who have never judged a fight in their lives think they're right.What I noticed about people who think they can do a better job than a fight judge also think they do a better job at everything, a coincidence I'm sure, but something I thought might be worth mentioning. I always say judge a fight at home and if your score matches up with one of the judges, put the pen and paper down and toddle off to bed

[The Hitman]

Really at this point in time don't you think it would make more sense for judges to watch the fight from a monitor and score? That way they get an unobstructed view point for the whole fight. I know being ringside is supposed to capture more of the speed and power of the punches actually being thrown and landed but it seems being able to watch a fight from one vantage point would be more of a handicap.

Not a bad idea. I certainly would be open to the idea of them trying at least one of the three judges scoring from a monitor's viewpoint. It's more worthwhile to try this than another foray into the world of open scoring

[TIP]

Here is a decision that was horrendous and corrupt. YouRememberThat.Com - Taking You Back In Time... - Howard Cosell Loses His Toupee


Here is what LeDoux said about years later. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SON_Spm7fcE


LeDoux absolutely kicked Boudroux's ass TIP

[Michael Matos]

This may add a little insight. This an article by Chuck Giampa former(thankfully) Las Vegas Judge who now teaches(unfortunately) judging in Nevada. so according to good old Chucky this how you judge a fight.

People often ask me how or why judges score rounds the way they do. Her's how it works.

There are three major criteria that judges should use in scoring each round, effective aggression, ring generalship and aggression. A judge evaluates each factor in order, proceeding to the next only if no clear advantage can be determined.

Effective Aggression: This is the most improtant factor in determining the winner of each round. A judge must decide which fighter landed the most effective punches in terms of power, volume and accuracy regardless of whether he's moving backward, forward or sideways, is against the ropes or is counterpunching.

Ring Generalship: This factor is misunderstood by many judges. If a round is too close to call based on effective aggression, the fighter who controls the action and shuts down his opponent should win that round.

Aggression: If the two factors mentioned above fail to produce a winner, then and only then, should the round be scored in favor of the aggressor-the one who forces the action against a boxer who backpedals or doesn't palnt his feet to fight.

If thats how you judge a fight no wonder we get so many shitty decisions. According to Chucky you start with effective agression, fair enough you then move on to ring generalship and the line I highighted "the fighter who controls the action and shuts the other fighter down". Forgive me if I'm missing something here but if fighter A "shut down" fighter B wouldn't that be obvious using his first criteria. If two fighters are basically even in the volume, power and accuracy of their punches then why and how on God's green is the tiebreaker control and shutting down the opponent. It just doesn't make sense. He then's moves on to ring generalship as the determinig factor if the two previous criteria don't give you a winner of the round. and he says "only then, should the round be scored in favor of the aggressor-the one who foces the action against a boxer who backpedals or doesn't plant his feet to fight. Well fuck me Chucky you just said in rule 1. Effective Agression that "A judge must decide which fighter landed the most effective punches in terms of power,volume and accuracy regardless of whether he's moving forward,backward or sideways, is against the ropes or is counterpunching" So in rule 1 it doesn't make a difference if a fighter is moving backward,forward or sideways but in rule 3 it's held against him.

If rule 1 doesn't give you a winner you move on to rules 2 and 3 which contradict what you're looking for in rule 1. However the main point he made while not aware that he made it was that if it ever came down to rule 3 he would favor the puncher "the one who forces the action against a boxer who backpedals or doesn't plant his feet" Thats his mindset, he teaches judging in Nevada and therefore that mindset is passed down as criteria. That may give you an insight to those decisons in how the fighter that "boxed" so well ultimately lost the fight. We also now know that Nevada judges do not judge fights based on all three criteria it's either one or the other not a combination of two or all three, no arguement as to whether Joe Palooka's Ring Generalship negated Kid Candles agression or effective agression or any combination thereof. Pretty straightforward don't you think?

[zboxz]

the biggest problem is consistency between judges.

if there was true uniformity we would all train our fighters for that criteria.

it is way to interpretative and in those grey areas creeps in fraud and poor decisions.

[Mark G]

Jack I havethis little book of lists by Bert Sugar and Teddy Atlas and it gives a list of the 12 most controversial decisions so I researched the judges and have done the first three fights. Check this out.

12. Angel manfredy SD12 over Julio diaz, judges Mark Nelson and Bill Clancy vote for Manfredy.
Mark Nelson, starts judging fights in Minnesota exclusively for first 10 years of judging, first fight outside of Minnesota is Winky Wright SD12 over Bronaco Mckart for WBO 154 itle, Two judges have Wright up by 2 points, Nelson has McKart up by 3. 2 fights later he's off to Germany as a WBO judge for a Darius titledefense, back o Minnesota for a year and he's sent off to Germany again where he judges the Loewe-Carruth WBO welterweight title bout, 2 judges see Loewe the winner by 1 and 6 points respectively, Nelson has the fight a draw. Judges in Minnesota for another year before getting the Manfredy-Diaz job. Rides out the rest of his judging career in the midwest and gets female flyweight title fight in Japan. My take on Nelson-Never ready for Primetime.

Bill Clancy: Clancy is the other judge who scores Manfredy over Diaz. If records I saw are correct Clancy's first fight ever judged is NABF cruiserweight title fight in Canada, 13 fights later he gets an IBF interim title fight, his next fight is Montell Griffin-Eric Harding won by Harding via split decison, Clancy has Griffin winning by 2, the other two judges have Harding by 2 and 4 points respectively. Clancy hen spends 2 years judging 4 and 6 rounders in North Carolina before getting the Manfredy-Diaz gig. After Manfredy-Diaz he doesn't judge a fight for two years and his first job back is David Tua vs Rahman and he is the only judge seeing Tua as the winner, he has Tua winning by 4. Is currently working the 4 and 6 round circuit in North Carolina/Virginia/Maryland. My take on Clancy, not ready for Primetime and somebody likes the way he judges.

11.Lupe Pintor SD!% over Carlos Zarate, judges Art Lurie and Harold Buck vote for Pintor.
Art Lurie: Lurie had been judging for 20 years before Pintor-Zarate, Las Veagas Judge. 20 years is a lot to pick from but I'll concern myself with the timeframe around Pintor-Zarate. Lurie is the only judge who votes for Ali over Spinks, two fights later he has Pintor over Zarate, he has Leonard up by a whopping 6 points over Benitez two fights after that, judges three more fights two ko title deenses of Larry Hlomes and a middleweight fight Hagker over Hamsho. Then dissapears for 6 years, first fight back is a WBC heavyweight title fight Berbick over Pinklon Thomas, ery next fight is Terrence Alli-Boza Edwards, he's te only judge who sees Alli he winner, two fights late gets Duran-Robbie Simms, he's the only judge who votes for Duran. My take on Lurie-Likes the popular fighter.

Harold Buck: Buck was a sometimes judge was a judge for Ali-Patterson and Dick Tiger title defense against Roger Rouse. Doesn't judge for another 7 years, as soon as he returns he gets high profile fights, is a judge for Ali-Spinks I along with Lurie, following that his title fight jobs were WBC ttles, he hasn't judged since 1983. My take on Buck: Call when needed.

10 Pernell Whitker D!@ Chavez sr. Judges Mickey Van and Franz Marti vote for Chavez.
Mickey vann-Longtime judge, always found him reliable, really can't explain it.
Franz Marti-His third job as a judge is a WBc welterweight title fight, 14 of his next 18 jobs are WBC title fights, is allmost exclusively a title fight referee judging fights for all organizations, is still judgiung today almost exclusively in Thailand. My take on Marti: Was fast tracked for a reason.

A little look behind the numbers so to speak. I hink you can see that Nelson and Clancy were out of their depth, Luire looks to be the judge who likes the name and his judging is slanted twards the headliner, the typical knock on Vegas judges even back then, Buck was a favorite son and Marti seems to be all of the above rolled into one. I'll study the rest of the list later.

Good stuff.