BoxRec

http://theghostofconnolly.wordpress.com/

An Open Letter to the British Boxing Board of Control

I am writing this in the wake of the Prizefighter event at York Hall on the 24th of February 2013. It was not an untypical event, but nevertheless it has prompted me to write regarding a growing problem in our sport.

It is long past due that the referees and judges of a boxing contest should be open to interview by the press, and indeed to questions put to them by the wider family of spectators and viewers.

Watching Ian Lewison lose on a split decision to Derrick Rossy was merely the most recent in a long line of questionable, or should that be, unquestionable, decisions. Two judges, men who had officiated and adjudicated many fights between them, both gave Derrick Rossy two of the three rounds.

I will say straight off that the judging of a bout is a subjective matter. I have sat down and watched fights both live and televised and scored fights differently to the people sitting either side of me, or to people I have discussed the fight with online. But at all times I can explain why I thought a round went to one fighter or another. What interests and angers me about the prevailing situation with the judges of the BBBofC is that while they may well be capable of explaining their reasoning, they are currently in a position where their reasoning is opaque and unfathomable.

I would propose, not that judges and officials be an official part of the post-fight press, but that they should be open to interview in the days following the event, as news media, and fans, would benefit from their point of view. Encouraging an insight into the technicalities and difficulties of judging a fight would, I feel, lessen the feeling of disconnection that many fans feel when watching – in their opinion – the wrong mans hand raised, once they more intimately understood the methodology the judges in question had used to score the fight.

I actually agree Matt, though I am slightly reminded of Boxing Monthly's Astronormus predicting soon that judges would have to support their decisions with a five hundred word essay or be summarily lynched by the crowd.

On second thought, that's a great fvcking idea. Seriously.

BBBofC, implement this immediately please!

PS: More seriously, the problem is not individual scores/decisions. It is that no-one appears to give a flying fvck about someone's track record of stupid decisions. If I fvck up some work I might not get that customer back again. If someone fvcks up a high-profile boxing match, hey-ho, they can try again with someone's life & career on the line next week, unless they're so obviously bent it's comical.

Then they have to wait a month or so.

Datsue wrote:I actually agree Matt, though I am slightly reminded of Boxing Monthly's Astronormus predicting soon that judges would have to support their decisions with a five hundred word essay or be summarily lynched by the crowd.

On second thought, that's a great fvcking idea. Seriously.

BBBofC, implement this immediately please!

PS: More seriously, the problem is not individual scores/decisions. It is that no-one appears to give a flying fvck about someone's track record of stupid decisions. If I fvck up some work I might not get that customer back again. If someone fvcks up a high-profile boxing match, hey-ho, they can try again with someone's life & career on the line next week, unless they're so obviously bent it's comical.

Then they have to wait a month or so.

I think the openness has to come first. Once refs and judges are seen as unable to justify their particular decisions, the pressure will be on the BBBofC to move them down from the level they are judging at.

I've no problem with them scoring it how they see it. But if we can never know how they see it, we have to assume they are incompetent or corrupt.

@matt___s wrote:I've no problem with them scoring it how they see it. But if we can never know how they see it, we have to assume they are incompetent or corrupt.

True, but I actually really meant it about wanting to read each judge's five hundred word justification for their scorecard.

But then again I'm sad & have a lot of time on my hands.

Have you named your blog after me?

@matt___s wrote:http://theghostofconnolly.wordpress.com/

An Open Letter to the British Boxing Board of Control

I am writing this in the wake of the Prizefighter event at York Hall on the 24th of February 2013. It was not an untypical event, but nevertheless it has prompted me to write regarding a growing problem in our sport.

It is long past due that the referees and judges of a boxing contest should be open to interview by the press, and indeed to questions put to them by the wider family of spectators and viewers.

Watching Ian Lewison lose on a split decision to Derrick Rossy was merely the most recent in a long line of questionable, or should that be, unquestionable, decisions. Two judges, men who had officiated and adjudicated many fights between them, both gave Derrick Rossy two of the three rounds.

I will say straight off that the judging of a bout is a subjective matter. I have sat down and watched fights both live and televised and scored fights differently to the people sitting either side of me, or to people I have discussed the fight with online. But at all times I can explain why I thought a round went to one fighter or another. What interests and angers me about the prevailing situation with the judges of the BBBofC is that while they may well be capable of explaining their reasoning, they are currently in a position where their reasoning is opaque and unfathomable.

I would propose, not that judges and officials be an official part of the post-fight press, but that they should be open to interview in the days following the event, as news media, and fans, would benefit from their point of view. Encouraging an insight into the technicalities and difficulties of judging a fight would, I feel, lessen the feeling of disconnection that many fans feel when watching – in their opinion – the wrong mans hand raised, once they more intimately understood the methodology the judges in question had used to score the fight.

Did you actually send this letter to the board, or just hope someone from there reads it on here?

I haven't yet. I was hoping to gauge the responses from people on here, which have ranged from the useful to the nonsensical as per, I'll probably incorporate Datsue's suggestions into it before I do.

I've never done one before.

danconnollyeire wrote:Have you named your blog after me?

No

I think most people, certainly going by what I've seen on here, would welcome the fact that hard-to-fathom reasoning be made more understandable.

I know, I know, BIG bump, but as long as the issue remains relevent (which will be probably for ever) I do think it important.

My feeling is that transparency in the selection process for officials, as well as at least some form of post-fight public access to officials (clearly within defined boundaries) would give the public more faith and interest in what is widely perceived to be an immensely corrupt sport. Especially in title fights, the fighters and camp are expected to give post fight pressers, so why not the officials - even just a closed de-brief that could be subsequently made available to the public would be progress.

Unfortunately my belief is that those who make a living around the sport (as opposed to the boxers themselves) have far too much interest in maintaining the status quo, and will resist or ignore any such ideas, no matter how much they might benefit the sport. Of course, the BBBofC is not the only governing body whose decisions could be called into question, but as a UK citizen and boxing fan, they're the one's I would hope to pressure.

The only way any change is even possible would be if there was a great deal of pressure from the boxing fan-base who create the profits. To this end, I believe such actions such as public letters (such as in the OP ) or internet petitions etc could make a good first step.

MachoMan09 wrote:

@matt___s wrote:I haven't yet. I was hoping to gauge the responses from people on here, which have ranged from the useful to the nonsensical as per, I'll probably incorporate Datsue's suggestions into it before I do.

I've never done one before.

I genuinely don't see what the sport will gain by opening up judges to a free for all of questioning. They won't be able to change the decision, so what's the point?

Perhaps if they know they will be held properly accountable then they will think twice about dodgy, potentially corrupt, scoring.

Was the ball over the line ?
He must have been 12 yards offside.
That was clearly a no ball.
Did you see where Tiger dropped that ball ?
Chalk dust, chalk dust !
That swimmer didn't touch the wall.
Save your time mate.
Wherever opinions reign you'll have disagreements.