BoxRec

Jip wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Jip wrote:

the many weght divisions and multiply belts aint the problem.

MAKING THE BEST FIGHTS POSSIBLE WITH THE BEST BOXERS IN PRIME SHAPE

joshua-wilder
kovalev-bertebiev
canelo-ggg
lomachenko-verdejo
rigondeaux-frampton
gonzales-inoue

how did elvis sing :"its now or never...."

anything else i dont care, except obviously robbery descisions

Honestly, would you like to see catch-weight match for HW championship with limit of 205 ? Honestly, please.

never heard of a catchweight heavyweight match up...you refferring to haye-bellew?

no i dont like that. but it doesnt bother me much either.

I just think about possibility of HW catchweight, and I am sure that we will see this parody soon (nothing with Haye-Bellew, it will be ordinary HW mismatch, well paid).

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Why would I make excuses? Damn dude, why are you so stubborn? It's always been that way, your point is correct that it's a big problem. Just not a modern specific one. I watched hundreds and hundreds of poo decisions during that timeframe.

OK, we will agree about a big problem....And, I can not see the way to destroy this danger/evil......I am a genuine boxing fan, like to see competitive fights and fair judging, regardless of fighters' race/ethnicity...

I wouldn't hold your breath. Judging has sucked for over a century. The best thing they could do for the incompetent part of it is put them in a soundproof room with a big screen TV and witnesses to make sure they're not discussing their cards. That eliminates the different angles and the fact that the tv view is vastly superior to ringside seats. For the corruption? They could pay them more I guess.

Have you thought about jail ? It would be a very acceptable option, for me, at least.........

Considering they've never caught one, that would be tough. Fixing the incompetent part would make the corruption more obvious.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Considering they've never caught one, that would be tough. Fixing the incompetent part would make the corruption more obvious.

You are right, unfortunately.

ValMar wrote:1. Corrupted judges and referees
2. Too many belts
3. Too many weight divisions
4. Possibility of catch-weights
5. Greedy promoters

I have been following boxing more than 40 years. Unfortunately, I can not predict the bright future for my favourite sport. Sadly, but I can not see the way to save boxing. I consider five aforementioned items as the worst danger for boxing. I would like to see your opinions.

I'd amend #3 a bit - way too many weight divisions, especially stupid light weight div's separated by like 3 pounds - but not enough heavy weight divisions, and the weight divisions are completely illogical. For instance the light heavyweight div now encompasses all of 7 pounds, 168-175 - but the one under it is 8 pounds - and then it abruptly jumps to a 25 pound wide weight division. So much solicitude for someone between 168 and 175, but meanwhile a guy weighing 176 is in with aguy weighing 200 - and even worse a man who weighs 201 is now in the same division as the current champs who tend to be around 6'6" and 250, some even much bigger.

Does anything about boxing make sense?

I can't think of any way to get rid of corrupt judging except to do away with judges all together and send boxing back to its origins where they fight until one combatant can't or won't continue...but I don't think that would be acceptable.

I've been following the sport for over 40 years as well.
And while that makes me sound absolutely ancient, I assure you that I'm a very young-looking, behaving & feeling 55 year old. Which, I know, most of you will dismiss as a "geezer" anyhow, but, I not. So there! LOL.
Anyhow, back to my experience in following boxing. The very first fight that I sat down & watched was the February 20th, 1976 Muhammad Ali title defense vs "The Lion of Flanders" Jean-Pierre Coopman, who Ali KO'd in 5 mostly dreary rounds. An inauspicious debut to be sure, but it interested me enough to watch Ali's next fight a month or so later against Jimmy Young. Who I thought outboxed Ali that night & deserved to be champion. And so did a whole lot of other folks as well.
And that controversy stimulated an even more fervent interest, one which led me to begin watching every heavyweight fight televised, which eventually led to me watching every fight broadcast regardless of weight class & well, here I am today. Still doing it ( sans dust & cobwebs strung about me thank you very much! LOL ).
So, yeah, I have just as much experience as ValMar does, but I believe that I have a much sharper memory, because I can testify to the fact that boxing has been on the very same terminal list that he's convinced that it's currently on since I first began watching the sport 40 years ago when I was 14 years old!
Back then, all the sportwriters thought that the game would die whenever Ali decided to hang up his gloves. Didn't happen.
Then it was Ray Leonard. When he first retired in '82 due to his detached retina, they thought that the sport would fade away post-Leonard. Didn't happen.
I could go on all bloody night stating examples of how & when boxing DIDN'T die.

As for the number of lousy decisions, there's always been bad calls. It hasn't killed the sport yet. Nor has the number of weight classes, which other than the creation in the '90s of the 108 & 105 weight classes is the same as it was 40 years ago.

The number of sanctioning bodies? Back in '76 all the writers were sure that having just the 'BA & 'BC would kill the game. It didn't. And, it hasn't died with four major sanctioning bodies. It's certainly not ideal & I don't like it any more than the next fan, but it is what it is.

What ValMar forgets is that as long as there are fighters that can capture the fans interest & imagination & who are willing to step into the ring with other fighters who have done the same, then boxing will survive. The weight class won't matter, which sanctioning bodies are involved won't matter either. This sport is about the fighters & the fights & that's it. And as long as there are good fights, people will watch. And, the sport will live on.

Peace.
- Jim

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:1,4 & 5 have been a part of boxing since it began.

Very true. But 2 an 3 have only made things worse.

I think the first two (corrupt judges and referees, too many belts) are the most severe. It is getting to the point where biased officials are an accepted part of the sport. Business is good for the belt manufacturers. Some people think the problem is the amount of sanctioning bodies today, but it is really with the major sanctioning bodies. No one is confusing the IBF champ with a lesser sanctioning body's "world" champ who is rated No. 150 on BoxRec, but you have a regular champ, super champ, interim champ, continental champ, intercontinental champ, international champ, so the belts are BS now. The major sanctioning bodies have increased the amount of their belts for their world and minor/regional titles, so they have the bulk of the belts and the vast majority of those belts are registered on BoxRec. They have flooded the market with belts. I am planning on writing an article about it because it is a major issue that needs to be addressed.

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:1,4 & 5 have been a part of boxing since it began.

Maybe, I am wrong, but I don't remember any obvious robbery on the highest level (1970-2000).
There is a lot of robberies in last three years, no need to list them.........

There has been several high-profile controversial decisions prior to the year 2000.

ValMar wrote:1. Corrupted judges and referees
2. Too many belts
3. Too many weight divisions
4. Possibility of catch-weights
5. Greedy promoters

I have been following boxing more than 40 years. Unfortunately, I can not predict the bright future for my favourite sport. Sadly, but I can not see the way to save boxing. I consider five aforementioned items as the worst danger for boxing. I would like to see your opinions.

I'm also 40 years deep in this sport but I do feel that the sport has a bright future and I think that 2017 is going to be one of the best years for Boxing in a decade. But i agree that it could be better but disagree with some of your items for the most part:

Corrupted Judges and Referees: I do think that there's a higher percentage of fixes than people realize so it's definitely a problem. I think the bigger issue though with judges and referees comes down to how a fight is scored. There are so many posts about scoring idea changes and I like a lot of them. The best idea I've heard is expanding the number of judges for a fight to 7 for a better sample size and the judges are offsite in a soundproof room watching and scoring the fight off of TV's.

Too many belts? Ah, ok. But i'm ok with the world titles now but not these other fake titles like the Silver, Diamond..etc..stupid.
Too many weight divisions? Nah, I'm good with the current classes
Possibility of catchweights? Nah, it's a bridge to seeing some nice fights.
Greedy promoters? Nah, i'm ok with greed. What i'm not ok with is how much pull these promoters have (i.e Arum getting Lomachenko title shot in his second fight...should never happen)

Maybe the big shows on pay per view can afford to have 7 judges, but not the club shows that are not televised. The number of judges would not matter anyway. It is not going to stop the corruption. I think the 10 point system is fine and works well if the judges are fair and impartial. We don't need half points to cause more confusion. Judges should not be influenced by crowd noise, but I know it happens. I think they still should be sitting at ringside though.

caldo2025 wrote:The best idea I've heard is expanding the number of judges for a fight to 7 for a better sample size and the judges are offsite in a soundproof room watching and scoring the fight off of TV's.

I would prefer that every PPV buy gets to be a judge. The votes come in for an hour after the fight. The ppv judges' statistical preference counts as one of three judges if it is less than 60%. 60% and above it holds 50% weight, counting as two votes.

The problem I have with the 7 judge soundproof room idea is cost and the logistics of setting it up. Where are these soundproof rooms? Who is monitoring the judging? How are judges selected and trained?

The fan voting model would increase revenue through increased ppv buys thanks to viewer participation. The business model could easily be extended to all live telecasts, creating a revenue stream through the marketing of judging privileges.

How many boxing enthusiasts would purchase an annual package to judge all live broadcast fights? What would you be willing to pay for the right to vote on every fight you watch?

There could be trips and cash prizes integrated easily into that model. It would make boxing more fun for me. I would prefer that each round be judged individually but that would likely be requiring more attention than most people legitimately give any but the marquee matchups.

I suppose there are not many persons of my generation (1965) here, on this forum. Although I had been living in a socialistic state, in the south-eastern Europe, I could have watched a lot of great fights during my childhood. OK, we had only one or two tv-chanels and could have followed only the HW matches, but for me, that was quite enough. It could seem unbelievable today, but the great majority (at least 85 %) of people around me, had been watching these fights.
So, I remember Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Holmes, Spinks brothers, etc...etc...I will repeat, maybe I am wrong, but really can not remember decision by robbery. Not at all......

ValMar wrote:I suppose there are not many persons of my generation (1965) here, on this forum. Although I had been living in a socialistic state, in the south-eastern Europe, I could have watched a lot of great fights during my childhood. OK, we had only one or two tv-chanels and could have followed only the HW matches, but for me, that was quite enough. It could seem unbelievable today, but the great majority (at least 85 %) of people around me, had been watching these fights.
So, I remember Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Holmes, Spinks brothers, etc...etc...I will repeat, maybe I am wrong, but really can not remember decision by robbery. Not at all......

Really?!!
I apologize for seeming so incredulous my friend, but I was born in 1961, so I've got 4 years on you & I can remember plenty of controversial decisions just involving the fighters that you mention. Such as:

Ali - Young - Considering that you were only about 10 at the time that it took place perhaps it would be too much to expect you to remember the details, though, so I'll remind you.
Young, coming in at 17-4-2 following a rather unimpressive decision over Jose Roman in his previous bout wasn't expected to trouble Ali much. So, Ali showed up at a career high 230 lbs & was rather thoroughly outboxed & outworked by Young over 15 rounds. However, the judges saw Young as being too passive & awarded the nod to the aggressor Ali.

Ali - Norton III- Norton was very unlucky to have lost the verdict to Ali in their rubber match.

Holmes - Witherspoon - Many saw the then- 15-0 Witherspoon as having outworked the aging Holmes who had to survive a rocky 9th round to hang onto his WBC title in a razor close fight.

Holmes - Williams - Though Carl "The Truth" Williams was considered a very bright prospect, most thought that at just 14-0 & coming off of a fight in which James "Quick" Tillis had him on the floor twice, that it was simply too soon for him, but he out jabbed Holmes & pressed the action throughout en route to a very unpopular decision loss over 15 rounds.

Holmes - Spinks II - Michael Spinks shocked the world by beating a 48-0 Holmes for the heavyweight title by swarming Holmes with volume. But, in their rematch, Holmes dominated with his jab & landed the far more significant blows over 15, but in an incredulous verdict, the judges gave the nod to Spinks.

And, those are just a few examples at heavyweight.
So, you see the judging isn't any worse today than it's ever been.

The most evil thing I saw in boxing this year was our "supposed" star of boxing, choosing and I mean choosing, because he has the luxury of choice, a blown up lightweight who had been knocked out in Rd1 as a lightweight, to fight him at a nonsensical catch-weight, greatly outweighing him and almost killing him in the process. Regardless of whether Khan is liked or not, they exploited his greed, his chin, his weight. Khan was never going to say no to that money.

That fan voting model is the worst idea I've ever heard.

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:The best idea I've heard is expanding the number of judges for a fight to 7 for a better sample size and the judges are offsite in a soundproof room watching and scoring the fight off of TV's.

I would prefer that every PPV buy gets to be a judge. The votes come in for an hour after the fight. The ppv judges' statistical preference counts as one of three judges if it is less than 60%. 60% and above it holds 50% weight, counting as two votes.

The problem I have with the 7 judge soundproof room idea is cost and the logistics of setting it up. Where are these soundproof rooms? Who is monitoring the judging? How are judges selected and trained?

The fan voting model would increase revenue through increased ppv buys thanks to viewer participation. The business model could easily be extended to all live telecasts, creating a revenue stream through the marketing of judging privileges.

How many boxing enthusiasts would purchase an annual package to judge all live broadcast fights? What would you be willing to pay for the right to vote on every fight you watch?

There could be trips and cash prizes integrated easily into that model. It would make boxing more fun for me. I would prefer that each round be judged individually but that would likely be requiring more attention than most people legitimately give any but the marquee matchups.

Not freaking bad dude. Not bad at all. Never heard that idea before.

ValMar wrote:1. Corrupted judges and referees

Disagree – even though we sometimes witness refs or the judges making poor decisions, the occurrence is fairly rare and nor can anyone prove that the main driver behind their behaviour was corruption.

ValMar wrote:2. Too many belts

Agree.

ValMar wrote:3. Too many weight divisions

Disagree – in terms of fairness and safety, the amount of weight classes is better now than during previous times when there were only eight. Perhaps it’s feasible or even sensible to abolish two or three weight divisions, but regardless, this excess cannot be considered “evil” and does not have a significant adverse effect on the overall status of the sport.

ValMar wrote:4. Possibility of catch-weights

Disagree – a fighter is responsible for the terms of a fight that they agree to. Also, several major bouts would not have occurred without catch-weight stipulations.

ValMar wrote:5. Greedy promoters

Disagree - a promoter is not legally obliged to act in the fighter’s best interests. They are entitled to maximize the amount of profit realised from each fight promotion, because they're the ones taking the financial risk.

sweetviolenturge wrote:I've been following the sport for over 40 years as well.
And while that makes me sound absolutely ancient, I assure you that I'm a very young-looking, behaving & feeling 55 year old. Which, I know, most of you will dismiss as a "geezer" anyhow, but, I not. So there! LOL.
Anyhow, back to my experience in following boxing. The very first fight that I sat down & watched was the February 20th, 1976 Muhammad Ali title defense vs "The Lion of Flanders" Jean-Pierre Coopman, who Ali KO'd in 5 mostly dreary rounds. An inauspicious debut to be sure, but it interested me enough to watch Ali's next fight a month or so later against Jimmy Young. Who I thought outboxed Ali that night & deserved to be champion. And so did a whole lot of other folks as well.
And that controversy stimulated an even more fervent interest, one which led me to begin watching every heavyweight fight televised, which eventually led to me watching every fight broadcast regardless of weight class & well, here I am today. Still doing it ( sans dust & cobwebs strung about me thank you very much! LOL ).
So, yeah, I have just as much experience as ValMar does, but I believe that I have a much sharper memory, because I can testify to the fact that boxing has been on the very same terminal list that he's convinced that it's currently on since I first began watching the sport 40 years ago when I was 14 years old!
Back then, all the sportwriters thought that the game would die whenever Ali decided to hang up his gloves. Didn't happen.
Then it was Ray Leonard. When he first retired in '82 due to his detached retina, they thought that the sport would fade away post-Leonard. Didn't happen.
I could go on all bloody night stating examples of how & when boxing DIDN'T die.

As for the number of lousy decisions, there's always been bad calls. It hasn't killed the sport yet. Nor has the number of weight classes, which other than the creation in the '90s of the 108 & 105 weight classes is the same as it was 40 years ago.

The number of sanctioning bodies? Back in '76 all the writers were sure that having just the 'BA & 'BC would kill the game. It didn't. And, it hasn't died with four major sanctioning bodies. It's certainly not ideal & I don't like it any more than the next fan, but it is what it is.

What ValMar forgets is that as long as there are fighters that can capture the fans interest & imagination & who are willing to step into the ring with other fighters who have done the same, then boxing will survive. The weight class won't matter, which sanctioning bodies are involved won't matter either. This sport is about the fighters & the fights & that's it. And as long as there are good fights, people will watch. And, the sport will live on.

Peace.
- Jim

You can look even earlier...Dempsey -Tunney "long count", for example....and before it Dempsey avoided everyone for 3 years not having a title fight. And 20's considered Gold Time of boxing-)))

And 30's? Shmelling beat Louis (#1contender for title) but didn't get a shot due to politics....and 30's are also Golden Times...

The only difference is that at those times boxing was actually only legal pro sport-))))

This hasn't been mentioned, at least I didn't read it:

In modern boxing, fighters act as though results of matches never happened.

RJJ gets Knocked Out by Danny Green. Clamor for a rematch? None. John Ruiz gets KOd in 1 by David Tua, and Ruiz is defending bogus titles for years as though the KO BY 1 never happened.

When Ken Norton was KOd by Garcia, there was a rematch because normalcy demanded it.

Modern day boxing would never have had a Louis-Schmeling 2, the result of the first fight would simply be ignored -- as though it never occurred.

Tony1244 wrote:This hasn't been mentioned, at least I didn't read it:

In modern boxing, fighters act as though results of matches never happened.

RJJ gets Knocked Out by Danny Green. Clamor for a rematch? None. John Ruiz gets KOd in 1 by David Tua, and Ruiz is defending bogus titles for years as though the KO BY 1 never happened.

When Ken Norton was KOd by Garcia, there was a rematch because normalcy demanded it.

Modern day boxing would never have had a Louis-Schmeling 2, the result of the first fight would simply be ignored -- as though it never occurred.

The result of Shmeling-Loius 1 was ignored, actually. Shmeling beat the sh#t out of young Louis, but Louis was the one who got the shot for the title...

bigman1968 wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:This hasn't been mentioned, at least I didn't read it:

In modern boxing, fighters act as though results of matches never happened.

RJJ gets Knocked Out by Danny Green. Clamor for a rematch? None. John Ruiz gets KOd in 1 by David Tua, and Ruiz is defending bogus titles for years as though the KO BY 1 never happened.

When Ken Norton was KOd by Garcia, there was a rematch because normalcy demanded it.

Modern day boxing would never have had a Louis-Schmeling 2, the result of the first fight would simply be ignored -- as though it never occurred.

The result of Shmeling-Loius 1 was ignored, actually. Shmeling beat the sh#t out of young Louis, but Louis was the one who got the shot for the title...

The Louis - Scheming fights were only 2 years apart. Amazing how much more activity there was back then. I looked Max up. Interesting career; KO losses to a Gipsy Daniels and Gans. Also amazing those fights occurred in the 1920s in Germany !

... boxing has only one evil ... those who would denigrate it ...

... boxing is the highest achievement of Western Civilization and should be revered ...

... study boxing ...

http://www.boxingarts.com/

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

fixed fights - ducking dodging - protected fraud stars - boring set up sparring sessions -low class thugs - no interesting personalities like Steward Dundee Bouie Fisher Tyson Fury - no true rebels since they railroaded Fury out of the sport - best vs the best happens too rarely -