BoxRec

Judges often don't score body shots.

Best cure for boxing is less divisions and more top guys fighting each other.

It's more like what can be done to save your pocketbook. Simple don't bet on Boxing or bet less. Or just hope the guy your betting on knocks the other guy out. It is what it is the scoring being subjective and all. I don't bet on Boxing because you (I) never know..

Just move on to the next fight...

After the Sweet Pea v Chavez decision, I became a largely disinterested, very casual fan who would check results and watch some rounds if a big fight was on at the bar I was in. I decided that it was not worth my valuable time. It took me over a decade to come back and begin following boxing closely again, thanks partially to the fact that personal and business circumstances left some time for it if I chose to spend it that way.

Given my business circumstances over the last year to two years, coupled with the pure corruption of the boxing industry, I am no longer interested in spending much of the most valuable commodity I possess (my time) on the sport, or money for that matter.

Too many other worthwhile endeavors to invest in.

Fighters pee in a cup and give blood. Promoters have licenses, taxes and fees to worry about, not to mention contract negotiations.

Judges seem to be under the least amount of scrutiny in this business.

Bradley won but not by a large margin IMO. I had Bradley up by 2 or 3 rounds, there were a lot of close swing rounds as well. It was a bad decision, but the truth is Bradley was fighting someone he should have whitewashed (by boxing smart) in a non-title fight and decided to fight like a dumb ass by standing and trading giving Chaves the opportunity to keep himself in the fight. Chaves had no business making that fight competitive (which it was) and it was solely due to Bradleys efforts (standing and trading rather than boxing smart) that made it a competitive fight. Also, Bradley doesn't automatically deserve the decision in a close fight based on him beating Pacquiao (although he never really beat Pacquiao) to make Bradley seem like a better fighter than he really is, Bradley is actually quite overrated in my eyes.

Ian1973 wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:I think I had Bradley winning 9-3, it was a bit of a shock to hear the cards.

Seems I'm massively outnumbered here. Was no-one else really disappointed with Bradley's performance? I expected him to box, all I saw was a scruffy scrap and to be honest a bit of a bore fest. It amazes me that the American fans booed Thurman's quality boxing yet seemingly were happy with Bradley's classless, get stuck in attitude.

I don't get it.

I was satisfied with both of their performances and I still think Bradley did more than enough to distance himself to a clear victory regardless of the condition of his eye or how Chaves workrate made it appear (he was missing badly).

HAVE ONE GOVERNING BODY WORLD WIDE THEN EACH COUNTRY HAS ONE GOVERNING BODY THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE WORLD BODY
MAKE IT HARDER TO BECOME A COMPETION JUDGE [PASS THE TEST TO BECOME A JUDGE BY SHOWING YOU CAN JUDGE SAY ATLEAST 6 FIGHT'S NEED TO BE JUDGED TO PASS THE TEST THEN YOU LEARN YOUR TRADE BY JUDGING LESSER MATCHE'S NO TITTLE'S ON THE LINE MAKE THEM DO AMATUER FIGHT'S ETC. BEFORE THEY CAN BE A OFFICIAL JUDGE.
OR WE CAN ALL CHUCK IN AND PAY TEDDY ATLAS TO FIX IT.

Ian1973 wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:I think I had Bradley winning 9-3, it was a bit of a shock to hear the cards.

Seems I'm massively outnumbered here. Was no-one else really disappointed with Bradley's performance? I expected him to box, all I saw was a scruffy scrap and to be honest a bit of a bore fest. It amazes me that the American fans booed Thurman's quality boxing yet seemingly were happy with Bradley's classless, get stuck in attitude.

I don't get it.

I was disappointed with Bradley's performance, but I still thought he won at least 8 rounds.

Bradley was doing what most of fans like -- trying to land as many power punches as possible. Yes, he could move, box and score a win without looking like crap after the fight, but he was trying to fight more "fan friendly". This is what he got his 2 mil for.

The AIBA is complete scum. A couple of decisions people didn't like because they lost their parlays and all of a sudden this disappears from the collective consciousness? Let's be real - no one actually remembers or even realized that happened.

Boxing's commercial heyday happened in America with a cavalcade of names manufactured by mob promoters and invariably sacrificed to much better fighters back before PPV/closed circuit dollars changed everything and made top fighters too expensive for live network TV. If thrown fights and people being paid a fraction of what they do now is what you want to "save" the sport, then I'm not interested in seeing that version of the product.

Boxing will be just fine.
Fair to say there are some odd decisions, boxing cant sustain itself unless these things are done.

Boxing has always been rigged but at least they let a real event slip through now(about 60% of the time) and then which makes it all worth while.
If it has to be rigged I like it when it is the judging that is rigged and not the fighters themselves taking dives that way I can assess who i thought won, thats why i prefer some promoters over others the way the fights are rigged.
There are about 3 major way fights are rigged.The first three are on my list here 4-6 are just tipping the advantage to a certain fighter not really rigging.
1.judging
2.The referee
3.The fighter taking a dive
4.Smaller fighter coming up in weight to fight a larger opponent.
5.A known sylistic flaw that will be captialized on by a certain opponent.
6.Aged fighter with a name who is past his prime
I think boxing will plod along quiet well but maybe never return to it's extreme glory days.

cold187 wrote:easy - one governing body

like FIFA,

Great Topic especially after the last two weeks. First off, I must admit that i had NO problems with the scoring in the Herrera or Bradley fight. I am pathetic and score every fight I watch and my scores matches those exactly. Even the fight on ESPN two weekends ago that almost put Teddy Atlas in a straight jacket, i had the same score and agreed with that decision. That doesn't mean that i agree with how boxing is scored buy any means.

Scoring: Why do we only have 3 judges? Don't you think you would get a more accurate result with more subjects deciding on the victor of each round? I propose that there be more judges, sequestered in a soundproof room with no outside interference to judge these fights. These judges will all have the same view because TV is the best view but no sound of the fight (no biased commentators or crowd noise). They do not have to be at the fight. Why not treat it like the NFL. All of their reviews now come out of an office in NYC, no one is physically at the stadiums. They have a room of professionals presiding over questionable calls making the right decision 99% of the time. These scores are tabulated and if one judge sees something that the 9 other judges don't then he/she better be able to explain it.

Boxing is the most reluctant to change of all sports. They still do not have instant replay! Can you believe that? Recently, i've seen boxers knees hit the ground and not called a knockdown. Cuts caused by butts but not ruled as such. There are so many things instant replay could help with boxing. Boxing needs changes and to get with the times...it could be SO much better, but i still love it.

Tanzio wrote:After the Sweet Pea v Chavez decision, I became a largely disinterested, very casual fan who would check results and watch some rounds if a big fight was on at the bar I was in. I decided that it was not worth my valuable time. It took me over a decade to come back and begin following boxing closely again, thanks partially to the fact that personal and business circumstances left some time for it if I chose to spend it that way.

Given my business circumstances over the last year to two years, coupled with the pure corruption of the boxing industry, I am no longer interested in spending much of the most valuable commodity I possess (my time) on the sport, or money for that matter.

Too many other worthwhile endeavors to invest in.

Tanzio, don't give up man. If you watch those two fights from Saturday again and score each of those rounds you will see that the verdict was right on. I know, it's not a popular opinion but the commentators and the crowd have soooo much to do with how we view the fights. If you watch them again with no sound and make sure you score the CLEAN and EFFECTIVE punching and RING GENERALISM, i truly believe that you will be surprised. Don't give up man. It's a great sport.

Don't really worry about that decision. It won't hurt Tim or his career too much. And it only really smells when the name fighter gets the better end of a decision.

Also agree that it was closer than the commentators were suggesting. I had it 116-112 for Tim. But few rounds were really that conclusive.

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:After the Sweet Pea v Chavez decision, I became a largely disinterested, very casual fan who would check results and watch some rounds if a big fight was on at the bar I was in. I decided that it was not worth my valuable time. It took me over a decade to come back and begin following boxing closely again, thanks partially to the fact that personal and business circumstances left some time for it if I chose to spend it that way.

Given my business circumstances over the last year to two years, coupled with the pure corruption of the boxing industry, I am no longer interested in spending much of the most valuable commodity I possess (my time) on the sport, or money for that matter.

Too many other worthwhile endeavors to invest in.

Tanzio, don't give up man. If you watch those two fights from Saturday again and score each of those rounds you will see that the verdict was right on. I know, it's not a popular opinion but the commentators and the crowd have soooo much to do with how we view the fights. If you watch them again with no sound and make sure you score the CLEAN and EFFECTIVE punching and RING GENERALISM, i truly believe that you will be surprised. Don't give up man. It's a great sport.

I thought both decisions were poor and I watched w/o sound on a broadcast with no unofficial scorecard displayed. I agree that commentators influence viewer opinion, and the most notable example of this to me is Holyfield-Valuev; the Showtime team's consistent and one-sided criticism of Valuev's output and suggestions that Holyfield was throwing more actually led me to do my own punch stats, and I found that Valuev significantly outworked Holyfield in nearly every round. Recently I think that Jim Watt's nonsensical commentary (the most nonsensical aspect being his suggestion that Froch was controlling the bout with his jab) for Froch-Groves II led many people to believe that Froch was doing better than he was.

There are also times, however, in which I think commentators generally call things correctly and I believe it took incompetent or corrupt judging to reach the scores turned in for the Bradley and Herrera bouts.

Ian1973 wrote:

Lenny Cravats wrote:I think I had Bradley winning 9-3, it was a bit of a shock to hear the cards.

Seems I'm massively outnumbered here. Was no-one else really disappointed with Bradley's performance? I expected him to box, all I saw was a scruffy scrap and to be honest a bit of a bore fest. It amazes me that the American fans booed Thurman's quality boxing yet seemingly were happy with Bradley's classless, get stuck in attitude.

I don't get it.

I agree with you 100%. I was really hoping he was going to beat that smile off of Chavez's face but he was not in good shape or something else was wrong. In the corner, Diaz started mentioning problems with his stamina as early as the 6th round. I used to dislike TB but he won me over the last two years. Tremendous heart but he looked horrible, i agree.

The real question is did you enjoy the fight itself? Was it entertaining? That's all that really matters. Titles mean nothing now. Most judges do a fair job, but there are exceptions. We need an age limit of 60 plus periodic eye exams and mental fitness. Bring judges in without the knowledge of promoters and without telling them who is fighting. Use judges from neutral countries. Fight is in USA bring judges from Canada. Fight is in Russia have judges from Ukraine. Fight is in Mexico fly in Cuban judges.

The only real solution is one that has been refused for the last hundred years. One elected world body controlling the national commissions of every country. An international boxing union made up of people nominated by national commissions. No more Alphabet-gangsters. For the life of me I can't understand how we got shackled by these clowns. No one elected them. They weren't annointed by the Almighty. They appeared from nothing and said they were in charge and the witless clods in the media lapped it up.

It would require the will of the boxers and promoters to first approach national governments and ask them to help them create a national boxing commission if one does not already exist. As an inducement, a percentage of sanctioning fees would go to fund the commissions to avoid using taxpayers' money.

If there's going to be some kind of international commission, it should only be for judges and refs. Let a separate committee do the rankings and title where NO money is involved (ie The Ring).

If you centralize power, there's even more room for abuse. It always sounds good on paper, but will end up having the same pitfalls as the current organizations, only with more power.

diddy wrote:Is there any hope?

No there's none but we'll be back next week.

Remove the money.

Cap the earnings for fighters per fight at different levels up to world title fights. Say $100k for a defence, $75k for a challenger.

What this does is gets boxers out fighting more often to earn good money. The rest of the money generated goes back in to the sport for such things as sports science, education for after their career or a pension fund.

If a boxer is out every 2-3 months he will live the life of a boxer, keep close to his weight and concentrate on being a professional athlete and not a celebrity. With more frequent fights and challengers brings more risk of the belt changing hands, this removes the glorification of the '0' that so many boxers with padded records hold so dearly.

cold187 wrote:easy - one governing body

like FIFA, IAAF, IOC, ICC just to name a few

FIFA are the worst organization ever to be involved in sport.

Kingfield wrote:Remove the money.

Cap the earnings for fighters per fight at different levels up to world title fights. Say $100k for a defence, $75k for a challenger.

What this does is gets boxers out fighting more often to earn good money.

What that does is fewer athletes doing boxing.

In reference to the original question.... Manny vs Floyd would be a good start.