BoxRec

Badhusker wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Badhusker wrote:Three things I think might help, although doubt any are realistic at this time;

1) Make random blood and urine testing mandatory all year-round.

2) Get rid of PPV fights all together - give the sport back to the fans instead of greedy promoters and prima donnas. More exposure on regular TV would help the sport. Imagine 100 million watching instead of 1 million? PPV fights will keep decreasing anyway because of online streaming.

3) Increase the number of judges to five.

1) Why? People want their generation of athletes to be bigger, faster, stronger than ever before. PED's are prolific in every sport. Better to supervise them rather than intensify the clearly failing system currently employed. They should be legalized.

2) Completely agree.

3) On paper that should help. Corruption tends to find it's ways into dark corners though, so I'm not sure if it would help.

I am in strong disagreement. Number one it sends the wrong message to kids, especially in the high school level. I am for stricter rules, and a life-time ban for anyone that tests positive, even for the first time. Make it a level playing field but a natural one based on good nutrition and hard work. If athletes know they risk a lifetime ban, they will be very careful what they put in their bodies.

All actors and musicians should be drug tested, by that logic.

IMO a fighters association that would create The Titles, The rankings and a boxing network that would produce the events showing the fights the fans want to see. A monopole... an oligopole that would be to the advantage of the ones risking their lives in this business, THE FIGHTERS!!

The fans would win too because all the great fights would get made.

crusader wrote: 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.

I don't know if I'll ever feel masochistic enough to rewatch Holyfield-Valuev, but I distinctly remember having the impression that Valuev spent a great deal of the fight literally just standing in the center of the ring, watching Evander shadowbox.

The sky is falling.
It was falling when my great, great Grandfather was around, too.
And it will still be falling when my Son's son has a son.

Go fly a kite.

ReggieDiggs wrote:

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:Any culture that tells their children that athletes are role models is diseased.

Idk about this, as a child I think many people are your role models for different reasons. Now if you said any culture where Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashain are widely respected as role models is diseased I'd agree with you.

And even then (and believe me it pains me to say this) you can find attributes in those two that could be admired.

squiggy wrote:

crusader wrote: 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.

I don't know if I'll ever feel masochistic enough to rewatch Holyfield-Valuev, but I distinctly remember having the impression that Valuev spent a great deal of the fight literally just standing in the center of the ring, watching Evander shadowbox.

I counted the punches thrown quite meticulously and Valuev had a significant advantage in almost every round, especially over the second half. I'm slightly surprised by how easily people bought the frequently mentioned line of the Showtime commentators that Valuev stood around doing nothing while Holyfield outworked him, and I say 'bought' because I don't see how so many people would get that impression if they watched the fight without repeatedly hearing that (just like I can't see how so many people would think Froch was out-jabbing and/or clearly beating Groves w/o Watt's influence).

I can easily understand why people thought Holyfield was more effective, but he wasn't close to being the busier fighter punch-wise; Valuev jabbed fairly consistently and to a moderate degree while Holyfield spent very large portions of each round moving without punching, only occasionally stopping to throw a 2-3 punch combo.

Use 5 points to score a round. 5-4 if a round is close. 5-3 if the round has a clear winner. 5-2 if there is a clear winner and he scores a knockdown. 5-1 if there are multiple knockdowns or one fighter is getting the crap beaten out of him.

Cap wrote:Here's an idea. Have a random collection of 100 seat-assigned tickets from the live crowd. Put the tickets in a cardboard box and have one of the ring card girls pull out three tickets at random, then go to the people in those seats and have them act as judges. They can't do any worse and will really be concentrating on the action because of the sudden responsibility.

The ridiculous sums of money made from some of these PPVs need to be divided up so that a percentage of the cash is invested in the sport. Problem with that is none of the participants have any interest in doing it. So it comes back to a single governing body (fantasy) or a billionaire boxing fan turned czar to force things to happen to save the sport, at least in North America. Fortunately, there is just enough poverty in Europe and South America to provide future participants, as the top performers generally constitute only a small fraction of all pro boxers.

i like this idea, only i would embellish it a little. there really needs to be some consequences for these bad
decisions in big fights, like lifetime bans. go find something else to do for a living.

ReggieDiggs wrote: -I think there should be clear & concise guidelines on what wins a round. Judges should know it, fighters should know it, trainers should know it & fans should know it. Right now there are only soft guidelines & it would seem as if any judge can be subjective & decide on their own how to interpret these guidelines. The way boxing judging works would be like if a random NFL ref could decide the QB hitting the goalpost with a pass can be a touchdown too.

-I think you need to judge the judges. This is a companion change with the above. I think there should be some sort of ranking system employed for judges with training to improve them, suspensions for bad performances & with rises in the level of the fights they judge for consistently good performances & drops for those less consistent.

i agree with this, but right now the judges are too shady as far as lying after the fact as to what
critieria they used to win rounds. i have always been a big advocate of just having extra lines
on a card that specifically questions judges on what they were looking at, so nobody has any doubt
whether the judge is completely incompetent and gives them no wiggle room, later.
whatever you pick are the main criteria for scoring a fight, make up a few questions to put on
the card for each round. for example, check off these boxes:
who came forward to initiate more exchanges? fighter a __ fighter b __ about the same __
who landed more? fighter a __ fighter b __ about the same __
who landed the more effective (hard + accurate) punches? fighter a __ fighter b __ about the same
who grabbed more to prevent exchanges from taking place on the inside? fighter a __ fighter b __ about the same

there aren't THAT many criteria to score a fight, maybe a few more questions.
maybe even add a blank box for the judge to add an additional note.
this way at the end of the fight we aren't looking at random subjective numbers
that can be justified AFTER the fight by using revisionist history. we will all
know EXACTLY what these guys were watching, which i think is probably most
of the problem. we will know if they are blind or corrupt immediately.

Judges really need to be held accountable. Lifetime bans, financial penalties, etc.

punchoutsb wrote:Judges really need to be held accountable. Lifetime bans, financial penalties, etc.

I like the idea of financial penalties, problem is judges don't make much. I think the top guys might get $50k/year. Top NBA refs make like $500k/year. Maybe if/when some accountability & guidelines get added to judging there could be some method of getting the quality judges some more effing money (I know there is commission issues with pay).

I feel like there is a good chance there was some sketchy sh!t that went down in Manny vs Tim, Floyd vs Saul or Floyd vs Marcos I with those fights scorecards & the killing one could have made on Tim winning or Floyd winning a majority decision. For example $50k on Floyd by unanimous decision over Saul woulda gave you a $20,000 score, $50k on Floyd by majority decision woulda gave you a $600,000 score. And all you'd need to do in that situation is talk one person who's making $50k/year to find maybe 3-4 extra rounds to give the dog. It won't shock me at all if at some point some scandal surrounding those 3 fights gets made public.

ReggieDiggs wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Judges really need to be held accountable. Lifetime bans, financial penalties, etc.

I like the idea of financial penalties, problem is judges don't make much. I think the top guys might get $50k/year. Top NBA refs make like $500k/year. Maybe if/when some accountability & guidelines get added to judging there could be some method of getting the quality judges some more effing money (I know there is commission issues with pay).

I feel like there is a good chance there was some sketchy sh!t that went down in Manny vs Tim, Floyd vs Saul or Floyd vs Marcos I with those fights scorecards & the killing one could have made on Tim winning or Floyd winning a majority decision. For example $50k on Floyd by unanimous decision over Saul woulda gave you a $20,000 score, $50k on Floyd by majority decision woulda gave you a $600,000 score. And all you'd need to do in that situation is talk one person who's making $50k/year to find maybe 3-4 extra rounds to give the dog. It won't shock me at all if at some point some scandal surrounding those 3 fights gets made public.

Do you think fines rather than just withholding purses would help?

If someone is betting on the side, it would still be worth it for them because there is no way to tell how much they would be getting from the side bet.

But if it's a case of a promoter offering a few K's to be favorable to the fighter, a hefty fine might make the risk/reward not worth it.

punchoutsb wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Judges really need to be held accountable. Lifetime bans, financial penalties, etc.

I like the idea of financial penalties, problem is judges don't make much. I think the top guys might get $50k/year. Top NBA refs make like $500k/year. Maybe if/when some accountability & guidelines get added to judging there could be some method of getting the quality judges some more effing money (I know there is commission issues with pay).

I feel like there is a good chance there was some sketchy sh!t that went down in Manny vs Tim, Floyd vs Saul or Floyd vs Marcos I with those fights scorecards & the killing one could have made on Tim winning or Floyd winning a majority decision. For example $50k on Floyd by unanimous decision over Saul woulda gave you a $20,000 score, $50k on Floyd by majority decision woulda gave you a $600,000 score. And all you'd need to do in that situation is talk one person who's making $50k/year to find maybe 3-4 extra rounds to give the dog. It won't shock me at all if at some point some scandal surrounding those 3 fights gets made public.

Do you think fines rather than just withholding purses would help?

If someone is betting on the side, it would still be worth it for them because there is no way to tell how much they would be getting from the side bet.

But if it's a case of a promoter offering a few K's to be favorable to the fighter, a hefty fine might make the risk/reward not worth it.

With the pay judges get idk that it'd make much difference to fine them. Although I suppose suspensions have the same effect & I am for them as things lie. Idk what you mean exactly about withholding purses.

I think better pay would just reduce betting or angle shenanigans & then you could have fines cuz they'd mean something. You'll never 100% get that out of the sport (or any sport/business/whatever). There are always gonna be ways to game the system & some people will take advantage of it. The NBA had the guy a few years back doing sketchy sh!t if you remember.

Need better Government on order to give the Sport a better Sense (at large with the Generation). The WBC WBA WBO IBF are ea. 1e championships. We need to be calling them FAIR; everything else FRAUD. The 1ST major 4 need to interact (as they do) but.....they have to RENEW & be "bitter strong" when a fraud Ibo holder won't relinquish. AND: we make a way for ANY/ALL "second echelon" groups to come into it. 5 State value approximately. I have been involved w/boxing 47 years and I'm telling ALL GREEN HORNS this is the major problem with the Sport in modern times. [VETERANS KNOW THIS ALREADY ].