Roy Rutherford has called for the introduction of three judges in British title fights after he controversially lost his featherweight title to Dazzo Williams in Belfast on Saturday night.
The Coventry man lost by one round on referee Paul Thomas' scorecard (115-114) after an absorbing 12-rounder in which Rutherford provided the better quality while Williams was more aggressive.
Thomas' decision was greeted with widespread boos throughout the King's Hall.
"It's just one of those things," said Rutherford.
"True champions bounce back and I will bounce back.
"I do think, though, that it's time to bring in three judges for these kind of title fights, rather than it all relying one person's decision.
"It was a very close fight but I felt I boxed a lot better than my opponent and there was much more quality in my work. I thought I had won more of the rounds, and was on top for longer during the rounds, than him and I was very surprised at the decision.
"Anyway, you can always tell who's really won a fight by the state of their face, he was cut and bruised while I didn't have a mark on me.
"Don't get me wrong, I’m certainly not criticising Paul Thomas, but perhaps if there had been more then one judge they would have seen it differently.
"I think for this calibre of fight the British Boxing Board of Control need to bring in the three-judge system, it would be fairer I think."
Roy Rutherford calls for three judges
-
TerribleTerry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:30
It does seem to happen more (dodgy decisions, I'm refering to) when its just the ref scoring. I do think we need to go to the 3 judges for all title fights at the very least.
I can't understand why the rule hasn't changed earlier to be honest, although I'm sure it has something to do with ££££, doesn't everything.
I can't understand why the rule hasn't changed earlier to be honest, although I'm sure it has something to do with ££££, doesn't everything.
Stu - perhaps I am being naive, but I don't think it is due to money - after all, you could clearly use British referees to be the judges and the are normally at least 3 of them at a big show anyway.
The couple of times I have asked Board officials about it at fights (Block and the short sat one whose name I have forgotten), I get the impression that they still genuinely believe the referee has the best view and as a man of integrity, is best qualified to judge.
I suspect within a year or two though, they wil change, particularly if the key promoters are vocal in wanting a change. I am still undecided - I have seen very few shockers, but lots of close fights that the referee had slightly differently from me. I contrast that with ringside judges who seem capable of the most absurd scoring - is that due to their view or that a lot of such judges are not as knowledgable about boxing and its scoring system as good British referees?
The couple of times I have asked Board officials about it at fights (Block and the short sat one whose name I have forgotten), I get the impression that they still genuinely believe the referee has the best view and as a man of integrity, is best qualified to judge.
I suspect within a year or two though, they wil change, particularly if the key promoters are vocal in wanting a change. I am still undecided - I have seen very few shockers, but lots of close fights that the referee had slightly differently from me. I contrast that with ringside judges who seem capable of the most absurd scoring - is that due to their view or that a lot of such judges are not as knowledgable about boxing and its scoring system as good British referees?
Excellent post. We all know that three judges can get it just as wrong as one referee. But I think the fact virtually every other governing body in the world uses three judges leaves The Board open to criticism when a decision like Barnes-Vincent occurs. I agree that three judges will be introduced to this country shortly. Simon Block hinted of such in Boxing News recently. It won't eradicate bad verdicts. It will at least standardise the judging situation.Loynesy wrote:Stu - perhaps I am being naive, but I don't think it is due to money - after all, you could clearly use British referees to be the judges and the are normally at least 3 of them at a big show anyway.
The couple of times I have asked Board officials about it at fights (Block and the short sat one whose name I have forgotten), I get the impression that they still genuinely believe the referee has the best view and as a man of integrity, is best qualified to judge.
I suspect within a year or two though, they wil change, particularly if the key promoters are vocal in wanting a change. I am still undecided - I have seen very few shockers, but lots of close fights that the referee had slightly differently from me. I contrast that with ringside judges who seem capable of the most absurd scoring - is that due to their view or that a lot of such judges are not as knowledgable about boxing and its scoring system as good British referees?
