What to do in the event of disputed decisions

[whicker]

Seems to be a lot of them in Britain.

Why not show a vid of the fight WITHOUT COMMENTARY or commentators scorecards to, say, 5 people from abroad who are unlikley to know the result (international fans, refs, judges or whatever.)

Yes, it's far from ideal, but its interesting.

I think a lot of the time the Sky commentaotrs bias the way a lot of people view a fight (subconsciously.)

[terrez]

Something like this would be preferable, but once it was done for one fight, every boxer, trainer and promoter would be calling for it on nearly every fight and it could easily spiral to become a normal thing.

It's a difficult one, but I do think video replay should still be included in boxing, but in a more instant fashion, like to question if a knock down was actually knock down, not a trip etc or if a blow/action was actually and intended illegal one or a genuine accident as these things can change the deserved outcome of a fight.

I do think the board should however annually review ref's and judges scoring abilities, say take 5 wild or controversial decisions they appear to have made within the year, get them reviewed by an independent panel of judges, this should help make sure they are doing their job properly?
If a ref or judge is consistently off the mark then give them a warning and some training, if it still persists review their status? Don't give the review panel the power to change any decisions in the ring.

Ref and judges need something to be fearful of and answer too plus if they are bent or loosing their touch this will help keep the standards high.

[SAPFO]

How about Draw = 1 more round?

[taffytoon]

The problem you have is the footage, TV footage of a fight shows all angles, referees and or judges do not have this luxury. What you see in real time so to say is different from what you see watching a screen. Like I have always said and I mean it with sincerity is if you think you have what it takes to become a referee then send a letter in to the BBBoC and have an interview.

[whicker]

The problem you have is the footage, TV footage of a fight shows all angles, referees and or judges do not have this luxury. What you see in real time so to say is different from what you see watching a screen. Like I have always said and I mean it with sincerity is if you think you have what it takes to become a referee then send a letter in to the BBBoC and have an interview.

Yes, I actually think there are some good point here.

Whenever there is a fight on TV, people tend to be VERY influenced (perhaps subconsciously) by the commentary teams (especially Sky.) Sky's style, which I hate, is to "pick" a person they think is winning, and talk about how amazing they are. The sometimes will "change their horses in midstream" but often as not, will just stick with one guy.


Next Friday Fight Night, I'm going to watch without volume, and put tape over so I can't see their televised scorecard- and try and score the bout myself.

To go back to my original point- and it's all hypothetical- if a fight footage was shown to people who did not know the result, and say at least 4 of them scored it the same way, that would be useful.

[TheCobra]

The problem you have is the footage, TV footage of a fight shows all angles, referees and or judges do not have this luxury. What you see in real time so to say is different from what you see watching a screen. Like I have always said and I mean it with sincerity is if you think you have what it takes to become a referee then send a letter in to the BBBoC and have an interview.

Yes, I actually think there are some good point here.

Whenever there is a fight on TV, people tend to be VERY influenced (perhaps subconsciously) by the commentary teams (especially Sky.) Sky's style, which I hate, is to "pick" a person they think is winning, and talk about how amazing they are. The sometimes will "change their horses in midstream" but often as not, will just stick with one guy.


Next Friday Fight Night, I'm going to watch without volume, and put tape over so I can't see their televised scorecard- and try and score the bout myself.

To go back to my original point- and it's all hypothetical- if a fight footage was shown to people who did not know the result, and say at least 4 of them scored it the same way, that would be useful.

i agree, but I love the crowd noise and atmosphere, it would be great to have an option to switch off commentary!

[Old bones Ian]

How about Draw = 1 more round?

This has been tried in the past, Doug Dewitt beat Tony Thornton in a contest that was decided with a 13th round.

thing is nowadays 12 rounds is the limit of the ruling bodies.

[maninthemiddle]

The whole point of introducing 3 judges was to provide a fairer balanced view of the contest.
Judging from TV isn't the best as you fail to clearly identify whether some punches have landed and what their effect has been. Your angle of view is also a factor. You may have noted Howard Foster was sat on the same side of the ring as Sky and was the only one of 3 who agreed with their view.
The bottom line is, howerer much you disagree with the overall result, if you cannot convince 2 out of 3 judges you don't get the verdict. In these instances it is always prudent (before putting someone to the sword) to review the fight and see how many rounds you can change your original view on.
It will ALWAYS come down to individual interpretation.

[m1kee50]

How about Draw = 1 more round?

If they arent more than 4 rounds up over three cards... then call it a draw.
And make it routine that judges and refs/scoring refs can be interviewed and asked about specific rounds or incidents.

[bigdaddy]

Think Jim Watt and Adam smith are terrible,

[whicker]

You may have noted Howard Foster was sat on the same side of the ring as Sky and was the only one of 3 who agreed with their view.

Very very good point.

[crusader]

The problem you have is the footage, TV footage of a fight shows all angles, referees and or judges do not have this luxury. What you see in real time so to say is different from what you see watching a screen. Like I have always said and I mean it with sincerity is if you think you have what it takes to become a referee then send a letter in to the BBBoC and have an interview.

Yes, I actually think there are some good point here.

Whenever there is a fight on TV, people tend to be VERY influenced (perhaps subconsciously) by the commentary teams (especially Sky.) Sky's style, which I hate, is to "pick" a person they think is winning, and talk about how amazing they are. The sometimes will "change their horses in midstream" but often as not, will just stick with one guy.


Next Friday Fight Night, I'm going to watch without volume, and put tape over so I can't see their televised scorecard- and try and score the bout myself.

To go back to my original point- and it's all hypothetical- if a fight footage was shown to people who did not know the result, and say at least 4 of them scored it the same way, that would be useful.

I almost always watch fights without the sound and my score cards don't usually vary to much from the general public opinion. However, there are definitely fights where over the top commentary can sway public opinion. I still feel as if the outrage over the Holyfield-Valuev outcome was a result of horrendously pro-Holyfield commentary. Watching without commentary I had Valeuv winning. When I watched the fight for a second time, I was shocked at how one sided the broadcast team had the bout
in favor of Holyfield. When there are people telling you round after round that one guy is winning, it can sometimes be difficult to judge the fight from a neutral perspective.

In my opinion watching without the sound on is the best way to go because it allows you to form your own view without having other people telling you what they think is going on. It also helps eliminate the cheers of the crowd who go wild every time the hometown fighter so much as flinches. Off course the judges are not afforded this luxury, but I would hope an experienced official would be able to get past the roar of the crowd and give both fighters equal credit for equal work.

[whicker]

Commentators used to give a generally factual view of the event. "He throws a left, then a right, another right to the head." I enjoy the old school radio broadcasts, for this reason. They also followed the bout with excitment, and provided relevant information- "he goes to his corner, manned by experienced trainer Jimmy Tibbs..." etc

Judging an event was the business of the judges. Criticising a fight, and analysising it, was the business of writers and journalists.

The issue is that a commentators given scorecard is almost seen as a factual thing, rather than what it is- simply a guess, often from someone who has no experience refereeing, and who has had other duties too.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

The governing body should be able to review and over rule decisions if they are dodgy, in today's age why not?

[bennie]

In Argentina, if it's close, they make it a draw to protect both fighters.