BoxRec

I watched Canelo v Lara this morning. I enjoyed the fight but once again some very suspect judging (from one judge)

I scored it a draw but would have no problem with the two 115-113 cards (one for each fighter)

However a 117-111 for Canelo by the third judge is utter bollox.

They are supposed to be boxing experts judging the fight. One guy gives it to Lara by 2 rounds and some other guy gives it to Canelo by 6 rounds. This is the same fight watched live by two boxing experts. How is it possible (or allowed)

Basically the careers and earning potential of these boxers is in the hands of three blokes who may see the action very differently. If the third judge saw it the same way as the first, Lara would have won the fight.

The judges scorecards mean nothing at all. It doesnt tell us who actually won the fight, it tells us who won the fight according to the sometime very subjective judging of 3 people.

I am not saying they should fight on until one guy cannot stand, but they have to overhaul this system.

Why not have a system where you have 20 scorecards posted by judges watching on live TV? At least then we would have a much broader base from which the result can be drawn.

3 judges is just not enough to give a wide enough sample on how the fight actually went.

That is 2 losses on Lara's record now, when you could argue that he has actually lost neither of them.

Sports where the subjective judging decides the outcome are always dodgy. Take diving. I am convinced that that if one of the Chinese divers who are always massive favourites get extra points just for the fact that they are supposed to be the best. If some rough arse khazakstani pulled off the exact same dive, he would get nowhere near the same score.

It stinks, I dont like it and I am gonna do something about it Bellew style (spit and shout and act like an arse). Piss and wind. Scouse.

Its subjective I'm pretty sure you or anyone else had a scorecard that didn't match up to the masses.

In had it 116-112 Lara so obviously though he deserved it but seeing is just less than 50% of people on here think Alvarez won then it probably wasnt a robbery although i just cant see it myself why Canelo won but thats just my opinion but what is it these days in Vegas with the 1 shocking card,it has to stop

Ridiculous scorecard. I'm convinced he got the name wrong on the card 117-111 Lara is about right.

Alvarez won clearly.

There is nothing wrong with the 117-111 scorecard.

Lara is pure garbage.

handsofstone wrote:In had it 116-112 Lara so obviously though he deserved it but seeing is just less than 50% of people on here think Alvarez won then it probably wasnt a robbery although i just cant see it myself why Canelo won but thats just my opinion but what is it these days in Vegas with the 1 shocking card,it has to stop

I imagine it has a lot to do with the casino betting - most gamblers will bet on a UD rather than SD or MD, so the 1 contrary scorecard will throw out a lot of bets.

As long as the correct person ultimately wins, the controversy is forgotten fairly quickly (e.g Canelo beating Mayweather would have been hugely controversial & probably led to a massive investigation into judging/betting, whereas the 1 scorecard that stopped it being a UD for Floyd can be just put down to a rogue judge having a 'bad night').

Ignore the Canelo fight for a minute...how did a judge have Pungluang 58-56 up again Tomoki Kameda?...Lets not even mention the judge who had John Karl Sosa losing...

Horse wrote:Alvarez won clearly.

There is nothing wrong with the 117-111 scorecard.

Lara is pure garbage.

Yet another idiotic post by the Donkey.

taffytoon wrote:Yet another idiotic post by the Donkey.

I'm glad you disagree with me.

Horse wrote:

taffytoon wrote:Yet another idiotic post by the Donkey.

I'm glad you disagree with me.

Eeeeeveryone disagrees with you. Which is just how you like it.

DMA1987 wrote:Eeeeeveryone disagrees with you. Which is just how you like it.

I speak my mind, may everyone else be darned.

I have said for a while that the three judges should be given a particular thing to judge instead of just deciding for themselves what they want to see. They would have to decide what the three most important factors were in deciding who deserves to win for example:
One judge may score depending on Ring generalship
Another may score on Effective aggression
Another may judge on who scores the most power punches or who has the best defence etc.

I think that would work better as at the moment the judges just get to score a fight however they see fit.

Boxing Prospect wrote:Ignore the Canelo fight for a minute...how did a judge have Pungluang 58-56 up again Tomoki Kameda?...Lets not even mention the judge who had John Karl Sosa losing...

I actually disagree I thought Kameda won every round except the 4th round, but I value someone elses opinion. Just to say that your scorecard is stupid just because I can't see that score is disrespectful just like people saying 117-111 canelo is outrageous are we saying we every card we ever had matched up the masses of course not.

world ranked wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:Ignore the Canelo fight for a minute...how did a judge have Pungluang 58-56 up again Tomoki Kameda?...Lets not even mention the judge who had John Karl Sosa losing...

I actually disagree I thought Kameda won every round except the 4th round, but I value someone elses opinion. Just to say that your scorecard is stupid just because I can't see that score is disrespectful just like people saying 117-111 canelo is outrageous are we saying we every card we ever had matched up the masses of course not.

I thought Kameda won all but rounds 3 and 4, I can't see ANY WAY to have Pungluang ahead like 1 judge did. A scorecard doesn't need to match up to the general consensus but you need to be able to explain HOW you could come to that score. How a judge came to have Pungluang being in the lead is simple unexplainable.

Boxing Prospect wrote:

world ranked wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:Ignore the Canelo fight for a minute...how did a judge have Pungluang 58-56 up again Tomoki Kameda?...Lets not even mention the judge who had John Karl Sosa losing...

I actually disagree I thought Kameda won every round except the 4th round, but I value someone elses opinion. Just to say that your scorecard is stupid just because I can't see that score is disrespectful just like people saying 117-111 canelo is outrageous are we saying we every card we ever had matched up the masses of course not.

I thought Kameda won all but rounds 3 and 4, I can't see ANY WAY to have Pungluang ahead like 1 judge did. A scorecard doesn't need to match up to the general consensus but you need to be able to explain HOW you could come to that score. How a judge came to have Pungluang being in the lead is simple unexplainable.

I think we missed the fact that we 1) have TV and see better angles and 2) similar to Canelo fight judges prefer fighters who are on the front foot making the fight.

You don't/shouldn't win rounds for 'being on the front foot trying to make a fight' if you're not landing scoring shots or any shots at all! It counts for nothing.

Final round wrote:You don't/shouldn't win rounds for 'being on the front foot trying to make a fight' if you're not landing scoring shots or any shots at all! It counts for nothing.

I understand but if back is facing you im coming forward and you can't see what landing and what's not we going to assume that some of those punches landed even if were not sure because as a judge I don't have the best view.

world ranked wrote:

Final round wrote:You don't/shouldn't win rounds for 'being on the front foot trying to make a fight' if you're not landing scoring shots or any shots at all! It counts for nothing.

I understand but if back is facing you im coming forward and you can't see what landing and what's not we going to assume that some of those punches landed even if were not sure because as a judge I don't have the best view.

Yes fair point, maybe they should have video feed set up ringside for when view is impeded

Judges should generally watch fights on TV monitors, not by looking directly into the ring. I think it's an exception when the latter offers a better view.

crusader wrote:Judges should generally watch fights on TV monitors, not by looking directly into the ring. I think it's an exception when the latter offers a better view.

now that I agree but as of right because they don't it impares the judgement somewhat

Horse wrote:Alvarez won clearly.

There is nothing wrong with the 117-111 scorecard.

Lara is pure garbage.

For once I agree with Horse I fully understand any judge giving Lara the first 3 & Canelo everything after that. Canelo forced the fight & Lara did virtually nothing.

Final round wrote:You don't/shouldn't win rounds for 'being on the front foot trying to make a fight' if you're not landing scoring shots or any shots at all! It counts for nothing.

Since when. Thats the whole idea is its boxing not Johnny Nelson v Carlos De Leon again!

pyenest77 wrote:

Final round wrote:You don't/shouldn't win rounds for 'being on the front foot trying to make a fight' if you're not landing scoring shots or any shots at all! It counts for nothing.

Since when. Thats the whole idea is its boxing not Johnny Nelson v Carlos De Leon again!

Why should coming forward and missing by judged more favorably than moving and making someone miss? We can debate whether Canelo was forcing Lara back or whether Lara was drawing Canelo in, but what's not debatable is that Lara was the one making Canelo miss.

You suggest the idea of boxing is to force a fight, but have you heard of the saying hit and not be hit? Lara hit his opponent more and made him miss more. Obviously there is more to judging than that, but I don't see how moving forward is inherently superior to moving in other directions, so I think it's nonsensical to score rounds based on the direction in which the fighters move.

A lot has been made of Lara's work rate and I think he should've been more active, but despite apparently 'running' all fight he regularly landed clean jabs and straight lefts and is listed as landing more according to CompuBox. Punch stats shouldn't be blindly accepted, but I thought Lara outlanded Alvarez in most rounds too and I think his greater accuracy went far in offsetting his relative inactivity, which is overblown anyway; while he was moving Canelo was reduced to single shots, and when he stopped to get punches off he'd put them together in twos and threes, which may account for why those counting punches thrown had Canelo averaging only about 2.9 more a round. Would you have given additional rounds to Lara if he threw 10 more punches a round and badly missed all of them?

i had it 8 round to 4 lara ( debating with myself though maybe a 7-5 ) and my son whos a boxer had it 6 to 5 lara

i liked laras hit and move work but i can see that judges may be swayed by the pressure , it was a close fight

the final judge score card was well out though

scoring has become a complete joke recently from canelo getting a draw vs floyd on one card to bradley beating manny pac in the first fight . we don't need more judges infact i think that's the problem i see much less bad scoring done by the ref who scores as well in britian compared with using 3 judges ..