BoxRec

Serious question.

The last couple of weeks I've witnessed some abysmal and outrageous decisions. And most of these fights I'm talking about are clear cut decisions, not just close fights. I anticipate before every fight a home-town robbery.

I'm beginning to get tired of these decisions. It's week in-week out I watch boxing I see these lop sided cringe worthy decisions, not just monthly, every single week!

Some say us fans are powerless to do anything about it, but if that's the case then Boxing is in trouble right now. All big Boxing countries are at it, not just Britain, America, Germany, Russia.

Time to let our voices be heard and not tolerate this ludicrously in Boxing.

For Terry O'Connor to give it 115-113 for McKloskey last night was a joke. This means he gave Mc 8 rounds after the knockdown. How??

Finch wrote:For Terry O'Connor to give it 115-113 for McKloskey last night was a joke. This means he gave Mc 8 rounds after the knockdown. How??

It was sickening to see a fighter that put in a hard nights work to be rewarded less than a couple of rounds.

Terry O'Conner should have been fired years ago. He is a hindrance to the sport.

Its a sad time for Boxing.

Are judges able to retrospectively change the way they scored a round come the end of a fight? Or at the end of the round is it some how logged?

There should be a BBofBC enquiry into the standard of judging in the UK

Brit Ryan wrote:There should be a BBofBC enquiry into the standard of judging in the UK

Judging and refereeing I think. It's a shame that as one of the better boxing nations in the World we seem to have a poor standard of refereeing and judging relative to our boxers. We seem to fairly regularly be commenting on here a poor decision or a poor refereeing performance.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the occasional close decision going to the other guy, when we think one guy won it by 1 round or 2, then if it goes to the other guy it can hardly be called a robbery, but it's the Fury v McDermott 1 jobs and the guys scoring Sprott v Skelton 2 a draw that need looking at. If it was an occasional occurrence it wouldn't be a problem but it seems to be happening so often.

I'm amazed it has taken you this long to notice!!

Is hardly new in fact it has been one of the constants in the sport

Yes

When you look at other sports I would say that boxing is one f ther most non-corrupt. ineptitude and corruptness are completely differentthings.

Horse racing, football, motor sport, cricket, cycling, ice skaing, athletics, snooker have all been brought into question so boxing is way down any list.

boxingchat wrote:When you look at other sports I would say that boxing is one f ther most non-corrupt. ineptitude and corruptness are completely differentthings.

Horse racing, football, motor sport, cricket, cycling, ice skaing, athletics, snooker have all been brought into question so boxing is way down any list.

Agree with that. Some of the officials in boxing are probably the most inept in sport today, which clearly drags everybody down. After seeing some of the boxing decisions lately it makes me want to be a little easier on the football referees I usually insult.

boxingchat wrote:When you look at other sports I would say that boxing is one f ther most non-corrupt. ineptitude and corruptness are completely differentthings.

Horse racing, football, motor sport, cricket, cycling, ice skaing, athletics, snooker have all been brought into question so boxing is way down any list.

the more dominace in sport, the more corrupt. and that goes for the tv companies as well.

Yes it is, it's corrupt more than other sports.

Evidence? There is controversy whenever there is anything dodgy in football, cricket etc.

In Boxing? Nobody cares, it's boxing

type in "cecil peoples mma"... now THERE is a guy who can't score a fight

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/im-tir ... t-1073224/

boxingchat wrote:Ineptitude and corruptness are completely differentthings.

If thats the case, then how come the 'ineptitude' you mention always seems to favour the promoters fighter?

Take the recent Jamie Cox fight - three judges (and the ref) making what most consider to be the wrong decision cannot be solely down to ineptitude. They are financially linked to the promoters. It is the promoter that indirectly pays their expenses and it is patently obvious to me that in some cases, they are looking after their own interests.

Corruption is perhaps a strong word, but lets not put it down to ineptitude. If they are inept, why the hell are they still judging/reffing fights?

Finch wrote:For Terry O'Connor to give it 115-113 for McKloskey last night was a joke. This means he gave Mc 8 rounds after the knockdown. How??

No it doesn't.

Terry O'Connor is a liability - Its beyond any sense of logic that he hasn't been relieved of his job, or at the least suspended.

No but it's not far off, it's without doubt the most frustrating sport in the world.

The fact Terry O'Connor's name seems to crop up so often.... well you do have to ask questions don't you?

Dan Dares wrote:

boxingchat wrote:Ineptitude and corruptness are completely differentthings.

If thats the case, then how come the 'ineptitude' you mention always seems to favour the promoters fighter?

Take the recent Jamie Cox fight - three judges (and the ref) making what most consider to be the wrong decision cannot be solely down to ineptitude. They are financially linked to the promoters. It is the promoter that indirectly pays their expenses and it is patently obvious to me that in some cases, they are looking after their own interests.

Corruption is perhaps a strong word, but lets not put it down to ineptitude. If they are inept, why the hell are they still judging/reffing fights?

Well said.

Sometimes people have a bad night and just get it wrong. Boxers have bad nights. Refs have bad nights. Judges have bad nights.

Just order a rematch...

Ezzard wrote:Sometimes people have a bad night and just get it wrong. Boxers have bad nights. Refs have bad nights. Judges have bad nights.

Just order a rematch...

That's a gross simplification of the situation. As has already been pointed out, if it's just a 'bad night' why is it always the 'home' fighter who benefits?

Deserter wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Sometimes people have a bad night and just get it wrong. Boxers have bad nights. Refs have bad nights. Judges have bad nights.

Just order a rematch...

That's a gross simplification of the situation. As has already been pointed out, if it's just a 'bad night' why is it always the 'home' fighter who benefits?

But it's like that in football too. In Italy I think they call it the Milan-Juventus rule that states any 50-50 decsion will go to Milan, Inter or Juve.

Home teams and big clubs usually get more decisions going their way. It stinks!

I had a mate who was a 4th official and he used to talk about the pressure certain clubs put on the refs. Some of the senior internationals would also talk during the match "you're going to be all over the papers tomorrow!"

Some managers would warn the ref that if they gave X a yellow card then he's miss an important cup game and it would be a big talking point...

More to the point how did they give it to Jamie Cox and also how did he not get disqualified.
He stunk the place out the fans can see a fix and booed him out the ring.
Makes a mokery of the sport.

Ezzard wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Sometimes people have a bad night and just get it wrong. Boxers have bad nights. Refs have bad nights. Judges have bad nights.

Just order a rematch...

That's a gross simplification of the situation. As has already been pointed out, if it's just a 'bad night' why is it always the 'home' fighter who benefits?

But it's like that in football too. In Italy I think they call it the Milan-Juventus rule that states any 50-50 decsion will go to Milan, Inter or Juve.

Home teams and big clubs usually get more decisions going their way. It stinks!

I had a mate who was a 4th official and he used to talk about the pressure certain clubs put on the refs. Some of the senior internationals would also talk during the match "you're going to be all over the papers tomorrow!"

Some managers would warn the ref that if they gave X a yellow card then he's miss an important cup game and it would be a big talking point...

But we're not talking about 50/50 decisions, we're talking about blatant robberies happening on a consistent basis. If you wanted to use a football analogy you'd be talking about blatant penalties not being awarded on a constant basis, perfectly decent goals disallowed etc.

Deserter wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Deserter wrote: That's a gross simplification of the situation. As has already been pointed out, if it's just a 'bad night' why is it always the 'home' fighter who benefits?

But it's like that in football too. In Italy I think they call it the Milan-Juventus rule that states any 50-50 decsion will go to Milan, Inter or Juve.

Home teams and big clubs usually get more decisions going their way. It stinks!

I had a mate who was a 4th official and he used to talk about the pressure certain clubs put on the refs. Some of the senior internationals would also talk during the match "you're going to be all over the papers tomorrow!"

Some managers would warn the ref that if they gave X a yellow card then he's miss an important cup game and it would be a big talking point...

But we're not talking about 50/50 decisions, we're talking about blatant robberies happening on a consistent basis. If you wanted to use a football analogy you'd be talking about blatant penalties not being awarded on a constant basis, perfectly decent goals disallowed etc.

Spot on. The football analogy doesn't work - its like comparing apples with gravy.