Judges: Do Two Wrongs Make A Right?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Let's say Fighter A wins a bout against Fighter B clearly, but drops the decision under controversy. In a rematch, Fighter B appears to have won legitimately, but the surprise is reversed, & the nod is given (unfairly, in the view of the majority) to Fighter A.

Either you're OK with this, because it evens out, or you're not, because it only perpetuates controversy, scandal, & more embarrassment for the sport. Essentially, either your loyalty lies with the sport's integrity, or the right thing being done by wronged boxers --- eventually.

Where do you stand?

(This thread inspired by the decisions in the first two Barrera-Morales fights)

[yancey]

I vote no.

In the eyes of a judge each fight should stand entirely on what happens in the ring that night and not what happened before.

[Seamus]

Sounds like Lewis v Holyfield II. LL deserved the decision in the first fight and there was such an outcry, that apparently he was undeservedly given it in the 2nd bout.

[jezzamundo]

Sounds like Lewis v Holyfield II. LL deserved the decision in the first fight and there was such an outcry, that apparently he was undeservedly given it in the 2nd bout.

I know this has been brought up a lot, but I don't think Lewis was undeserving of the decision in the second fight. I have always scored the fight narrowly for Lewis, but I don't have a problem with people who score it a draw, or narrowly for Holyfield. The scorecards were wider than they ought to have been (with the exception of the 115-113 to Lewis, which I think is about right), but all in all I thought a Lewis UD was not a bad result. The first fight ought to have been a clear win to Lewis, that was a bad decision. Funny how in both fights, only one of three judges got it right IMO.

[Goodnight, Irene]

What Jezz said.

I narrowly scored the rematch for Lewis, & it was close. Operative word being, "Close." It's a stretch, IMO, to call the second fight a robbery. If --- if --- Holyfield won, it wasn't by a big enough margin to justifiably cry foul over when Lewis was announced the winner.

[Ambling Alp]

As for the original question, no two wrongs don't make a right. It makes the sport look worse when there are bad decisions.
It makes it seem like it does not matter what happens in the ring.

As for Barrera-morlaes, the first fight, could have gone either way. The second fight could have gone either way as well. They were both back and forth fights with a lot of action. There several close rounds. It does not seem to be a makeup call in the rematch.

Off of the top of my head, I can't think a example where Fighter A clearly won the first fight, lost the decision, then Fighter B clearly deserved the verdict in the 2nd fight and lost the decision.

Lewis-Holyfield is the closest example. In the rematch, it's hard to find 7 rounds that Lewis deserved to win. For whatever reason, he did almost nothing in most of the fight.

[Crease]

They don't necessarily make things "right"...

But sometimes they do even things out.