BoxRec

You have seen the fights Chavez vs Whitaker, Azumah Nelson vs Fenech 1,did the judges get an envelope from Don King or did they simply get drunk before the fight any thoughts

Who knows, boxing has always been linked to corruption, anytime money is involved there is always an element of this in any sport. Obviously no one can say for certain but it does amaze me that a "professional" referee can score a fight the complete opposite to almost everyone else watching.

Some judges can get swayed by a fighter's popularity and think they should be scoring for a fighter because he is the 'attraction' (Ali, Leonard) in other cases they go with a guy simply because they share the same hometown, some judges are simply not qualified to judge a boxing match and there must be some on the take, it's difficult sometimes to identify who's actually on the take.

What bothers me is that often, certainly in Europe, promoters pay the judges expenses, so that creates a conflict in itself, I mean some of these guys must feel obliged to score in favour of the promoter's boy, especially if they can get return trips out of it.

Flump wrote: What bothers me is that often, certainly in Europe, promoters pay the judges expenses, so that creates a conflict in itself, I mean some of these guys must feel obliged to score in favour of the promoter's boy, especially if they can get return trips out of it.

Try get a decision off the home fighter in Germany or Italy, it's virtually impossible. Corrupt as hell if you ask me.

hhaehre wrote:

Flump wrote: What bothers me is that often, certainly in Europe, promoters pay the judges expenses, so that creates a conflict in itself, I mean some of these guys must feel obliged to score in favour of the promoter's boy, especially if they can get return trips out of it.

Try get a decision off the home fighter in Germany or Italy, it's virtually impossible. Corrupt as hell if you ask me.

Just watch any fight involving Sven Ottke, especially the Robin Reid one.

A judge is live at ringside and has to be influenced by the crowd. Home advantage always exists in every sport. You can't eliminate that.

Judges also have one view of the ring. They are not watching on TV. That one viewpoint also has to influence what they see.

The reputation of a fighter also makes a difference. Is he a champion. Is he a big name.

Like it or not all of these things are going to influence a judge. You can't get away from that.

Also though of course, as in ALL sports, some people are on the take.

Use your head.

Who hires the referee?

Who pays him?

Who asks him back to referee further bouts?

ANSWER: The promoter

A ref either does what he is instructed to do or he is not asked back.

The ref works for the promoter and the promoter's agenda.

The promoter is in business to make money.

Ali was a drawing card and Jimmy Young was not wanted even though he won every round against Ali.

The stooge local Maryland referee who Don King used to referee the bout danced as hard as he could for his boss, King--

saying with his actions, "Let me work some more in the future, Mr. King."

The ref gave Young THREE rounds out of fifteen.

The referees you see who work over and over again are asked back because they do what is desired.

It reached a point with the obvious bias and incompetence of Larry Hazzard's refereeing that most boxing people I knew stopped driving to Atlantic City to see fights in person.

Ruby Goldstein was a wretched referee.
He was also a bad physical specimen who tired badly as a fight went on.

He allowed some fighters to get hit long after a fight could have been stopped--or where a competent ref would have stopped the two fighters, moved the two fighters back out to the center of the ring--and in doing that finding out if the hurt fighter was able to continue.

Examples are the last Paret-Griffith fight, where an exhausted Goldstein became a spectator as Paret’s entire body from the waist up was outside the ropes and getting hit by Griffith with 20 or so punches in that position--- where any legitimate ref would have stopped the fighting and moved the fighters back out to the center of the ring as soon as Paret's body was through the ropes and outside the ring.

Goldstein let the Louis-Marciano fight go on too long at the end, and the same with the last Ortiz-Elorde fight.

Yet he stopped the 2nd Turpin-Robinson fight and took away Turpin's title even though Robinson was missing almost every punch he threw with Turpin on the ropes (Goldstein even stood there and did nothing while a desperate Robinson grabbed Turpin by the back of the head with his left hand and tried to hit him with his right).
Goldstein stopped the fight with only seconds left in the round and while Robinson had a terrible cut which would have caused the stoppage of the fight shortly.

CONTRAST that with what Goldstein did in the Paret-Griffith fight (Griffith was Madison Square Garden's meal ticket), the Louis-Marciano fight (where Louis was sitting on the middle rope unconscious with his arms hanging limp at his sides and his head completely fallen forward with his chin resting on his chest.

The Ortiz-Elorde 2nd fight matched exactly what Goldstein did in the Louis-Marciano fight. Elorde was obviously out resting against the ropes at the end and Goldstein stood by and let Ortiz hit him further.

To repeat, contrast Goldstein’s action in NOT stopping the Louis-Marciano and Ortiz-Elorde and the last Paret-Griffith fight with his taking away Turpin’s title in the 2nd Turpin-Robinson fight.

Look at what Mills Lane did to save Holyfield against Bert Cooper by calling a standing knockdown in order to keep the designated loser Cooper from hitting designated winner Holfyfield again.

These ‘referees’ are hired hands.

They want future work

and they know what they need to do to please their employers.

granberry wrote:
Who hires the referee?
Who pays him?
Who asks him back to referee further bouts?
ANSWER: The promoter

A ref either does what he is instructed to do or he is not asked back.
The ref works for the promoter and the promoter's agenda.
The promoter is in business to make money.
The referees you see who work over and over again are asked back because they do what is desired.
These ‘referees’ are hired hands.
They want future work and they know what they need to do to please their employers.

Of course there are bad or corrupt judges in all sports but in boxing you cannot tarnish all with the same brush. Using your argument would mean EVERY ref hired by the promoter is corrupt, thats simply not the case. Yes there are examples of bad decisions and bad refs but they are not all like that.

I hear the same complaints on the NBA board.

If you think the sport you are watching is manipulated why watch it?

..the competent judges are corrupt and the honest judges are incompetent.

of course there are some corrupt judges. its part of business. marketing the more popular fighter.

THEHAMMER321 wrote:You have seen the fights Chavez vs Whitaker, Azumah Nelson vs Fenech 1,did the judges get an envelope from Don King or did they simply get drunk before the fight any thoughts

You're the optimistic type, huh?

Can't these fvckwits be both? ;)

Judges arent corrupt. They just side with whoever they like more. Remember judges are also fans. If a judge is a big Khan fan for example and Khan was fighting Hatton, he would give the close rounds to Khan.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For example, some judges preferred to give the round to the most aggressive fighter, while other preferred to give the round to whoever lands the best punch in the round without taking into account what the other fighter did during the round. Also, I see a lot of judges and most people do not really take into account defense which in my opinion should play a big part in the scoring of a round.

Other factors are bias, incompetence, and to a lesser degree corruption. Most of the time the fighter with the biggest name gets the round scored in his favor just because he generates the most money.

For instance, in the Trinidad vs DLH, I scored the fight a clear win for Trinidad (Yes it was close but I still saw Trinidad win the fight). The first two rounds I score them even, Trinidad was pressing the action while DLH was giving him angles but doing nothing. By Trinidad backing DLH he gets points and DLH’s defense also gets point. Therefore, I score those rounds even. However, most people score those rounds for DLH, but they have no explanation of why he should have won those rounds. He only got those rounds because of bias in his favor. And the 12 round I score that round 10-8 in Trinidad’s favor. One thing is to box and gives angles and another is shamefully run like hell from the fight. DLH ran for two straight rounds and the third he should have gotten penalized for running like that. It is ok to take a round off, but three is just too much. And a lot of fights are won or lost in the championship rounds and DLH took all of them off. Score the fight any way you want, but for my taste DLH clearly lost that fight.

Having said that, I don’t think corruption plays a big part in boxing. I think preferences and bias are mostly to blame.

It's probably usually not corruption per se-Corruption implies that the judges were paid off or bribed. My guess is that that doesn't happen that often.
However, many certainly have their biases towards styles and personalities don't judge fairly.

If you think about it, it can't be mainly just incompetence. If that was the case, then there would be as many bad decisions that favor the lesser known fighters as the big names.
How many fights have their been where the bigger name fighter seems to clearly deserve the decision against a lesser known fighter and does not get it? Practically never.
However, you don't have to think too hard to think of times when the big name fighter doesn't deserve the decision against a lesser known fighter but gets it.

Ali vs Young, for instance.

Young won all 15 rounds, most by 2 points at least!

There is a long history of corrupt boxing judges.

football is just as bad