Is Ward P4P #1

[Andrew]

GGG is P4P number one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MibpB6nU_nw

[Andrew]

Yes I've got him number one. Probably helps I had him winning on Saturday.

My top 3

Ward
Gonzalez
Golovkin.

Ward beating Kovalev and Gonzalez beating Cuadras are the two best WINS of the year.

That is fair enough, but for those of us who thought Kovalev won it is more complicated.

I can't have Ward number one as I thought he lost that fight, yet I can't have Kovalev and number one as he lost the fight officially.

I'd say Gonzalez should be number one with Ward, Kovalev, Golovkin and Canelo in an unspecified order underneath.

The winner of Lomachenko vs Walters will probably be worthy of leapfrogging them all into second. Provided there is no controversy, of course

Yep this is the problem. Kovalev won the fight but three plonkers gave it the other way. How can you have a bloke at number one when he clearly by the majority consensus lost the fight?

Agree

Need a rematch immediately though

[jamesmcdonnell]

GGG is P4P number one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MibpB6nU_nw

Need to watch some more of this dude's fights.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes I've got him number one. Probably helps I had him winning on Saturday.

My top 3

Ward
Gonzalez
Golovkin.

Ward beating Kovalev and Gonzalez beating Cuadras are the two best WINS of the year.

That is fair enough, but for those of us who thought Kovalev won it is more complicated.

I can't have Ward number one as I thought he lost that fight, yet I can't have Kovalev and number one as he lost the fight officially.

I'd say Gonzalez should be number one with Ward, Kovalev, Golovkin and Canelo in an unspecified order underneath.

The winner of Lomachenko vs Walters will probably be worthy of leapfrogging them all into second. Provided there is no controversy, of course

Yep this is the problem. Kovalev won the fight but three plonkers gave it the other way. How can you have a bloke at number one when he clearly by the majority consensus lost the fight?

Fights aren't judged by 'majority consensus' though are they - whatever our views here, judges go through relatively rigorous training before they are allowed to judge fights, whereas everyone on here myself included may think we know how to score a fight, none of us, or very few of us, have any formal training.

[Horse]

Fights aren't judged by 'majority consensus' though are they - whatever our views here, judges go through relatively rigorous training before they are allowed to judge fights, whereas everyone on here myself included may think we know how to score a fight, none of us, or very few of us, have any formal training.

We should just accept the judges' decision without question then?

Watched the fight yet?

[jamesmcdonnell]

I'm actually working, I do have a day job you know, my job doesn't involve sitting all day watching fights.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with anything, merely that people sat at home always think they can do the job better than the judges, it's the same in all walks of life, people always think they are right, and the judges are wrong.

One of the problems with boxing, is that the criteria for scoring simply aren't well defined enough, nor are they talked about enough.

I've been following boxing god knows how long, and whilst I think I know the criteria, you usually have to go and look up the rules to find out precisely how bouts are scored, we all know the categories, but what how are the commissions instructing their referees, what weighting are they being told? It's easy to call them blind, or outright corrupt, but we don't know how they have been taught or advised, we may be judging on what we think are the same criteria, and actually not be correct.

I know for instance that in Nevada, judges are pretty much not able to give even rounds, because of fear of reprisals, as NSAC frowns upon it, this causes very obvious problems in scoring of close rounds, and skewing the results of fights. I forget the judge's name now, but he was one who judges many high profile fights, it was several years ago, when I wrote for maxboxing, but he emailed me in private to tell me this in response to an article on the problems with the scoring of fights.

I will watch and score the fight, and by the sounds of it, I imagine I'll probably end up giving quite a few even rounds, which wouldn't happen in Nevada.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I'm actually working, I do have a day job you know, my job doesn't involve sitting all day watching fights.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with anything, merely that people sat at home always think they can do the job better than the judges, it's the same in all walks of life, people always think they are right, and the judges are wrong.

One of the problems with boxing, is that the criteria for scoring simply aren't well defined enough, nor are they talked about enough.

I've been following boxing god knows how long, and whilst I think I know the criteria, you usually have to go and look up the rules to find out precisely how bouts are scored, we all know the categories, but what how are the commissions instructing their referees, what weighting are they being told? It's easy to call them blind, or outright corrupt, but we don't know how they have been taught or advised, we may be judging on what we think are the same criteria, and actually not be correct.

I know for instance that in Nevada, judges are pretty much not able to give even rounds, because of fear of reprisals, as NSAC frowns upon it, this causes very obvious problems in scoring of close rounds, and skewing the results of fights. I forget the judge's name now, but he was one who judges many high profile fights, it was several years ago, when I wrote for maxboxing, but he emailed me in private to tell me this in response to an article on the problems with the scoring of fights.

I will watch and score the fight, and by the sounds of it, I imagine I'll probably end up giving quite a few even rounds, which wouldn't happen in Nevada.

I've Just remembered, it was Jerry Roth - I'm sure it won't harm him mentioning it here.

[crusader]

I'm actually working, I do have a day job you know, my job doesn't involve sitting all day watching fights.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with anything, merely that people sat at home always think they can do the job better than the judges, it's the same in all walks of life, people always think they are right, and the judges are wrong.

One of the problems with boxing, is that the criteria for scoring simply aren't well defined enough, nor are they talked about enough.

I've been following boxing god knows how long, and whilst I think I know the criteria, you usually have to go and look up the rules to find out precisely how bouts are scored, we all know the categories, but what how are the commissions instructing their referees, what weighting are they being told? It's easy to call them blind, or outright corrupt, but we don't know how they have been taught or advised, we may be judging on what we think are the same criteria, and actually not be correct.

I know for instance that in Nevada, judges are pretty much not able to give even rounds, because of fear of reprisals, as NSAC frowns upon it, this causes very obvious problems in scoring of close rounds, and skewing the results of fights. I forget the judge's name now, but he was one who judges many high profile fights, it was several years ago, when I wrote for maxboxing, but he emailed me in private to tell me this in response to an article on the problems with the scoring of fights.

I will watch and score the fight, and by the sounds of it, I imagine I'll probably end up giving quite a few even rounds, which wouldn't happen in Nevada.

People sitting at home do a far better job than judges all the time.

Leaving aside Kov-Ward, what about the Perez-Hooker draw rendered by the three trained judges? Are the masses of observers who believe Perez dominated in quantity and quality actually mistaken in holding that opinion? Was there so much nuance to Hooker's ostensibly flailing blows and poor defense that only a well-trained eye could espy the hidden brilliance in his work?

Boxing is filled with shitty decisions, and it's very hard for me to believe that the judges responsible for these dubious outcomes have such keen perception that they're seeing things the average hardcore fan doesn't catch. I agree that judging a fight ringside can be more difficult, due to the fixed view and inability to reflect as much on how to score the rounds, but I still think a reasonable judge should be able to avoid the type of nonsensical scores that are common these days.

Given the power fight judges have, especially when it comes to higher profile bouts, I also imagine that there are far more attempts to win their favour than people like me, you, or Horse face when we're judging a fight from our computer. Perhaps that means they have more temptation to unfairly lean toward one side, and maybe that's why poor decisions disproportionately benefit the house fighters?

[jamesmcdonnell]

I'm actually working, I do have a day job you know, my job doesn't involve sitting all day watching fights.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with anything, merely that people sat at home always think they can do the job better than the judges, it's the same in all walks of life, people always think they are right, and the judges are wrong.

One of the problems with boxing, is that the criteria for scoring simply aren't well defined enough, nor are they talked about enough.

I've been following boxing god knows how long, and whilst I think I know the criteria, you usually have to go and look up the rules to find out precisely how bouts are scored, we all know the categories, but what how are the commissions instructing their referees, what weighting are they being told? It's easy to call them blind, or outright corrupt, but we don't know how they have been taught or advised, we may be judging on what we think are the same criteria, and actually not be correct.

I know for instance that in Nevada, judges are pretty much not able to give even rounds, because of fear of reprisals, as NSAC frowns upon it, this causes very obvious problems in scoring of close rounds, and skewing the results of fights. I forget the judge's name now, but he was one who judges many high profile fights, it was several years ago, when I wrote for maxboxing, but he emailed me in private to tell me this in response to an article on the problems with the scoring of fights.

I will watch and score the fight, and by the sounds of it, I imagine I'll probably end up giving quite a few even rounds, which wouldn't happen in Nevada.

People sitting at home do a far better job than judges all the time.

Leaving aside Kov-Ward, what about the Perez-Hooker draw rendered by the three trained judges? Are the masses of observers who believe Perez dominated in quantity and quality actually mistaken in holding that opinion? Was there so much nuance to Hooker's ostensibly flailing blows and poor defense that only a well-trained eye could espy the hidden brilliance in his work?

Boxing is filled with shitty decisions, and it's very hard for me to believe that the judges responsible for these dubious outcomes have such keen perception that they're seeing things the average hardcore fan doesn't catch. I agree that judging a fight ringside can be more difficult, due to the fixed view and inability to reflect as much on how to score the rounds, but I still think a reasonable judge should be able to avoid the type of nonsensical scores that are common these days.

Given the power fight judges have, especially when it comes to higher profile bouts, I also imagine that there are far more attempts to win their favour than people like me, you, or Horse face when we're judging a fight from our computer. Perhaps that means they have more temptation to unfairly lean toward one side, and maybe that's why poor decisions disproportionately benefit the house fighters?

A better job according to whom though? Ourselves?

I've judged a couple of fights at ringside (not as a judge, as press) and it's a nightmare, you're often blind sided, your influenced by the crowd and the poor view, many factors.

I also wonder whether the way these judges are being instructed to judge fights, is at odds with how we think fights are being scored.

It's a question worth asking.

[Boxerbeetle]

I'm actually working, I do have a day job you know, my job doesn't involve sitting all day watching fights.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with anything, merely that people sat at home always think they can do the job better than the judges, it's the same in all walks of life, people always think they are right, and the judges are wrong.

One of the problems with boxing, is that the criteria for scoring simply aren't well defined enough, nor are they talked about enough.

I've been following boxing god knows how long, and whilst I think I know the criteria, you usually have to go and look up the rules to find out precisely how bouts are scored, we all know the categories, but what how are the commissions instructing their referees, what weighting are they being told? It's easy to call them blind, or outright corrupt, but we don't know how they have been taught or advised, we may be judging on what we think are the same criteria, and actually not be correct.

I know for instance that in Nevada, judges are pretty much not able to give even rounds, because of fear of reprisals, as NSAC frowns upon it, this causes very obvious problems in scoring of close rounds, and skewing the results of fights. I forget the judge's name now, but he was one who judges many high profile fights, it was several years ago, when I wrote for maxboxing, but he emailed me in private to tell me this in response to an article on the problems with the scoring of fights.

I will watch and score the fight, and by the sounds of it, I imagine I'll probably end up giving quite a few even rounds, which wouldn't happen in Nevada.

People sitting at home do a far better job than judges all the time.

Leaving aside Kov-Ward, what about the Perez-Hooker draw rendered by the three trained judges? Are the masses of observers who believe Perez dominated in quantity and quality actually mistaken in holding that opinion? Was there so much nuance to Hooker's ostensibly flailing blows and poor defense that only a well-trained eye could espy the hidden brilliance in his work?

Boxing is filled with shitty decisions, and it's very hard for me to believe that the judges responsible for these dubious outcomes have such keen perception that they're seeing things the average hardcore fan doesn't catch. I agree that judging a fight ringside can be more difficult, due to the fixed view and inability to reflect as much on how to score the rounds, but I still think a reasonable judge should be able to avoid the type of nonsensical scores that are common these days.

Given the power fight judges have, especially when it comes to higher profile bouts, I also imagine that there are far more attempts to win their favour than people like me, you, or Horse face when we're judging a fight from our computer. Perhaps that means they have more temptation to unfairly lean toward one side, and maybe that's why poor decisions disproportionately benefit the house fighters?

A better job according to whom though? Ourselves?

I've judged a couple of fights at ringside (not as a judge, as press) and it's a nightmare, you're often blind sided, your influenced by the crowd and the poor view, many factors.

I also wonder whether the way these judges are being instructed to judge fights, is at odds with how we think fights are being scored.

It's a question worth asking.

I bet the majority of us on here have, at some point, watched a fight live at a venue and scored it one way, but then scored it a totally different way when re-watching it on TV.

[jamesmcdonnell]

People sitting at home do a far better job than judges all the time.

Leaving aside Kov-Ward, what about the Perez-Hooker draw rendered by the three trained judges? Are the masses of observers who believe Perez dominated in quantity and quality actually mistaken in holding that opinion? Was there so much nuance to Hooker's ostensibly flailing blows and poor defense that only a well-trained eye could espy the hidden brilliance in his work?

Boxing is filled with shitty decisions, and it's very hard for me to believe that the judges responsible for these dubious outcomes have such keen perception that they're seeing things the average hardcore fan doesn't catch. I agree that judging a fight ringside can be more difficult, due to the fixed view and inability to reflect as much on how to score the rounds, but I still think a reasonable judge should be able to avoid the type of nonsensical scores that are common these days.

Given the power fight judges have, especially when it comes to higher profile bouts, I also imagine that there are far more attempts to win their favour than people like me, you, or Horse face when we're judging a fight from our computer. Perhaps that means they have more temptation to unfairly lean toward one side, and maybe that's why poor decisions disproportionately benefit the house fighters?

A better job according to whom though? Ourselves?

I've judged a couple of fights at ringside (not as a judge, as press) and it's a nightmare, you're often blind sided, your influenced by the crowd and the poor view, many factors.

I also wonder whether the way these judges are being instructed to judge fights, is at odds with how we think fights are being scored.

It's a question worth asking.

I bet the majority of us on here have, at some point, watched a fight live at a venue and scored it one way, but then scored it a totally different way when re-watching it on TV.

Most certainly, watching on TV, not only is the view so much better, you get replays of the fight, and you also get influenced by the commentary.

In a sport where scoring is so subjective, these factors all have a part to play.

I have seen some scoring that I believe is only explicable, due to the influence of promoters and/or other forces, but they are not the majority of contentious decisions.

[dookus]

Maybe judges should also have access to a TV feed

[stujones]

No, I think the fight was too close for him to enhance his reputation.

I want to see Ward back at Super Middle.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Maybe judges should also have access to a TV feed

I've said this for a long time, judges should be in a booth isolated from the noise of the crowd, they could have short range mics that only pic up the sounds of the punches, and the judges should just have TV views, which are way better than sitting below the level of the ring, only viewing from one side - it's ludicrous.

I don't know why boxing is so resistant to change.

[crusader]

a

I'm actually working, I do have a day job you know, my job doesn't involve sitting all day watching fights.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with anything, merely that people sat at home always think they can do the job better than the judges, it's the same in all walks of life, people always think they are right, and the judges are wrong.

One of the problems with boxing, is that the criteria for scoring simply aren't well defined enough, nor are they talked about enough.

I've been following boxing god knows how long, and whilst I think I know the criteria, you usually have to go and look up the rules to find out precisely how bouts are scored, we all know the categories, but what how are the commissions instructing their referees, what weighting are they being told? It's easy to call them blind, or outright corrupt, but we don't know how they have been taught or advised, we may be judging on what we think are the same criteria, and actually not be correct.

I know for instance that in Nevada, judges are pretty much not able to give even rounds, because of fear of reprisals, as NSAC frowns upon it, this causes very obvious problems in scoring of close rounds, and skewing the results of fights. I forget the judge's name now, but he was one who judges many high profile fights, it was several years ago, when I wrote for maxboxing, but he emailed me in private to tell me this in response to an article on the problems with the scoring of fights.

I will watch and score the fight, and by the sounds of it, I imagine I'll probably end up giving quite a few even rounds, which wouldn't happen in Nevada.

People sitting at home do a far better job than judges all the time.

Leaving aside Kov-Ward, what about the Perez-Hooker draw rendered by the three trained judges? Are the masses of observers who believe Perez dominated in quantity and quality actually mistaken in holding that opinion? Was there so much nuance to Hooker's ostensibly flailing blows and poor defense that only a well-trained eye could espy the hidden brilliance in his work?

Boxing is filled with shitty decisions, and it's very hard for me to believe that the judges responsible for these dubious outcomes have such keen perception that they're seeing things the average hardcore fan doesn't catch. I agree that judging a fight ringside can be more difficult, due to the fixed view and inability to reflect as much on how to score the rounds, but I still think a reasonable judge should be able to avoid the type of nonsensical scores that are common these days.

Given the power fight judges have, especially when it comes to higher profile bouts, I also imagine that there are far more attempts to win their favour than people like me, you, or Horse face when we're judging a fight from our computer. Perhaps that means they have more temptation to unfairly lean toward one side, and maybe that's why poor decisions disproportionately benefit the house fighters?

A better job according to whom though? Ourselves?

I've judged a couple of fights at ringside (not as a judge, as press) and it's a nightmare, you're often blind sided, your influenced by the crowd and the poor view, many factors.

I also wonder whether the way these judges are being instructed to judge fights, is at odds with how we think fights are being scored.

It's a question worth asking.

Many people watch fights at the venue, but don't turn in scores that are hugely at odds with what occurs. In fact, the scoring of ringside press tends to be fairly close to the scoring of hardcore fans watching from home, and it's hardly as if, in a fight like Pac-Brad I, boxing writers watching at the venue saw the bout as the official judges did; go check the scores for that on the BoxRec page. Also consider that, to my knowledge, no boxing writer who attended the Ward-Pac card thought Maurice Hooker won the fight 97-93, and the fight is almost universally being labelled a robbery.

Further, what possible criteria could lead to a reasonable person legitimately thinking that Bradley beat Pac, Hooker beat Perez, Williams beat Lara, Helenius beat Chisora, Shumenov beat Campillo, or that Benevidez won every round against Santana, while Bey and Barthelemy deserved eleven rounds against Vasquez and Shafikov respectively? I've seen some judging guidelines mention things like clean punching, effective aggression, and defense, yet I'm baffled how using those criteria can explain the above cases (and far more) without incompetence or corruption being involved. And are judges instructed to give extra points to home fighters? Does that explain them disproportionately benefiting from poor scoring?

I agree that judges should watch on a TV monitor, and perhaps it's one of the reasons people scoring from home so often turn in more reasonable cards than the ringside judges do.

[gilgamesh]

No

You don't get P4P #1 status with a decision you didn't deserve

[jamesmcdonnell]

a

People sitting at home do a far better job than judges all the time.

Leaving aside Kov-Ward, what about the Perez-Hooker draw rendered by the three trained judges? Are the masses of observers who believe Perez dominated in quantity and quality actually mistaken in holding that opinion? Was there so much nuance to Hooker's ostensibly flailing blows and poor defense that only a well-trained eye could espy the hidden brilliance in his work?

Boxing is filled with shitty decisions, and it's very hard for me to believe that the judges responsible for these dubious outcomes have such keen perception that they're seeing things the average hardcore fan doesn't catch. I agree that judging a fight ringside can be more difficult, due to the fixed view and inability to reflect as much on how to score the rounds, but I still think a reasonable judge should be able to avoid the type of nonsensical scores that are common these days.

Given the power fight judges have, especially when it comes to higher profile bouts, I also imagine that there are far more attempts to win their favour than people like me, you, or Horse face when we're judging a fight from our computer. Perhaps that means they have more temptation to unfairly lean toward one side, and maybe that's why poor decisions disproportionately benefit the house fighters?

A better job according to whom though? Ourselves?

I've judged a couple of fights at ringside (not as a judge, as press) and it's a nightmare, you're often blind sided, your influenced by the crowd and the poor view, many factors.

I also wonder whether the way these judges are being instructed to judge fights, is at odds with how we think fights are being scored.

It's a question worth asking.

Many people watch fights at the venue, but don't turn in scores that are hugely at odds with what occurs. In fact, the scoring of ringside press tends to be fairly close to the scoring of hardcore fans watching from home, and it's hardly as if, in a fight like Pac-Brad I, boxing writers watching at the venue saw the bout as the official judges did; go check the scores for that on the BoxRec page. Also consider that, to my knowledge, no boxing writer who attended the Ward-Pac card thought Maurice Hooker won the fight 97-93, and the fight is almost universally being labelled a robbery.

Further, what possible criteria could lead to a reasonable person legitimately thinking that Bradley beat Pac, Hooker beat Perez, Williams beat Lara, Helenius beat Chisora, Shumenov beat Campillo, or that Benevidez won every round against Santana, while Bey and Barthelemy deserved eleven rounds against Vasquez and Shafikov respectively? I've seen some judging guidelines mention things like clean punching, effective aggression, and defense, yet I'm baffled how using those criteria can explain the above cases (and far more) without incompetence or corruption being involved. And are judges instructed to give extra points to home fighters? Does that explain them disproportionately benefiting from poor scoring?

I agree that judges should watch on a TV monitor, and perhaps it's one of the reasons people scoring from home so often turn in more reasonable cards than the ringside judges do.

I'm not sure if it is the case in the U.S, but in the UK certainly, the officials are paid from the promoters funds, not by the body that ratifies them, this obviously builds a subconscious incentive to support the home fighter, I'm not singling out any promoter here, it's just that if a guy wants to be appointed continutally on high profile gigs, he probably wants to avoid pissing off promoters who have the home fighter, and that will to some degree influence cards.

I'm thinking of phoning NSAC, and seeing if I can't get some answers regarding judges, their training, and the criteria they are teaching them.