Should boxing judges have experience as boxers?

[Ruthless-RKO]

Seen this article on Boxing Scene

Should boxing judges have experience as boxers?

It’s a fair question: Should someone who judges a professional boxing match have ever stepped into the ring themselves?

I’ve been asked that before – sometimes by fighters, sometimes by fans and sometimes by people who are flat-out angry about a decision. The assumption is, if you’ve never boxed, how can you truly understand what is happening in there?

It’s a valid concern. But here’s the truth: Having been a boxer isn’t necessary to be a good judge – though it absolutely helps.

Understanding from the outside isn’t easy

Most people grow up playing at least one sport. Whether it’s baseball, basketball or football, we’ve thrown a pass, taken a shot or stood in the batter’s box. Even if we weren’t elite athletes, we felt those sports from the inside. That gives fans and referees alike a basic reference point when watching or officiating.

But boxing is different.

The vast majority of people – including some boxing officials – have never laced up a glove, taken a body shot or gasped for air in the middle of a sparring round. The ring is a foreign world. Judging from the outside can feel like watching something through glass.

So while it’s not a prerequisite, having been in there – even just in the amateurs or in the gym – gives a judge insight that is hard to teach.

What ring experience adds

I’m not saying you have to have been a pro. You don’t need a championship belt to score a fight correctly. But if you’ve ever sparred a few rounds or trained seriously, you gain a better understanding of some key things:

When a fighter is tired: You notice the little tells – the shoulders sagging, the feet getting stuck, the body language slipping.
When a punch hurts: Not just from facial expressions, but from the way a fighter reacts – or doesn't react.
When a punch looks good but doesn’t land clean: You’ve been hit with glancing shots and you’ve landed them. You know the difference.
When someone’s surviving versus controlling: It’s subtle, but lived experience makes that easier to spot.

Can fight experience get in the way?

What can judges without ring experience do?

Skill over experience

That said, I’ve worked with judges who have never boxed a day in their lives – and they are excellent. They study the craft, stay objective and follow the criteria. They know the difference between scoring clean punches and being swayed by the crowd. They don’t need to have fought to see the fight.

The key is discipline, focus and judgment – not gym wars.

Bottom line

Boxing judging is not about who is tougher or who has been in the ring. It’s about scoring each round with consistency and clarity, based on what actually happens.

But if you have boxed – or even just trained seriously – you bring something extra. A better eye for what matters. A deeper respect for the fighters. And a little more empathy for what it takes to leave it all in the ring.

That doesn’t make you a better judge by default. But it doesn’t hurt, either.



Thoughts?

[margaret thatcher]

no, and ex fighters/current fighters give awful takes, predictions, and scores all the time too, lets not forget. the bad judging in boxing is benefitting the a-side so much that it clearly goes way beyond how each judge reads a fight. there is a systemic bias in place that benefits the bigger money side. that's what the big issue is. otherwise incompetant judges would be splitting bad decisions far more evenly

in fact, im sometimes in awe of people who have spent so much time as boxers can have such awful takes and so little insight. fighters, as much as, if not more than none fighters, are absolutely filled with cliched views.

the dumbest thing ive ever heard on commentary was not from any microphone warrior, but from former hw challenger jameel mccline, who said he thought tomas adamek would struggle with kevin mcbride's "heavyweight speed" (and this was well after mcbride's tyson win). for those of you who've seen mcbride, you know why that's laughable .......

believe it or not, adamek had no problems with kev's heavyweight speed

[stujones]

No, you can read a fight well without having experience as boxers.

I had no problem (on my occasions) with Ian Darke's take on a fight.

Plus (whilst I am sure they would be professional) there is an increased risk of some personal involvement. I'll never forget watching some small hall boxing and Paul Samuels brother (I think his name was Jason) was on the undercard. He was cheered on by some of the other boxers on the bill. And for me, he lost handily. These boxers were very vocal about "how crap" he's doing and he's "boxing like a crab" and really vocal to try and gee Samuels up - "wake up" etc. It didn't seem to work and I had Samuels well down at the end (6-2). The ref though gave the fight to Samuels and these boxers were then telling people how fair the decision was.

[golden_labrador]

no because CTE

[Coco]

If they are good, they are good

[gilgamesh]

More often than not when it's been a 3 man commentary team. A Blow by Blow man, A Color commentator, and a Former Fighter.

The Former Fighter seems to have less knowledge about how to score a fight than the other 2 on the commentary team. They show a lot of favoritism. They tend to favor guys who have a style similar to their own or just root for their favorite and score for him even in rounds he clearly ain't winning.

A Former Fighter is actually one of the last people you should want to judge a Boxing contest.

[margaret thatcher]

ya it's like sergio mora constantly fawning over any flicky defensive boxer, he's called 100-90 fights for the aggressor 'could go either way' because he's so biased towards the guy with no power who moves away

[JamesPhilips]

Most of the awful refs and judges were ex boxers…: usually low level ones with a chip

[margaret thatcher]

ah yes, including i am the weferee and good ol big terry o connor

[gilgamesh]

ah yes, including i am the weferee and good ol big terry o connor

And of course Jersey Joe Walcott totally bungling the whole situation in the Ali-Liston rematch.

Randy Neumann I believe was a former Heavyweight Fighter, and he was a pretty decent and fair referee for the most part. He's one of the only fighters I can think of who became a solid official in any noteworthy capacity.

[JC]

ah yes, including i am the weferee and good ol big terry o connor

And of course Jersey Joe Walcott totally bungling the whole situation in the Ali-Liston rematch.

Randy Neumann I believe was a former Heavyweight Fighter, and he was a pretty decent and fair referee for the most part. He's one of the only fighters I can think of who became a solid official in any noteworthy capacity.

Going back a bit further, there was a very well respected British ref, Sid Nathan, who had been a fighter.

[Coco]

Dave Parris, Billy Aird, Michael Alexander, Lewis Van Poetch

[margaret thatcher]

the highest level ex pro off the top of my head who regularly judges these days is phillip holiday, the super fit former lightweight ibf champ who gave prime shane mosely a competitive fight. he is south african but based in aus for many years now, ocassionally he does a world title fight and was on one of the saudi bills

of the fights ive seen that he's judged, he's no better than average, some he's had outright doozies

[dookus]

ah yes, including i am the weferee and good ol big terry o connor

And of course Jersey Joe Walcott totally bungling the whole situation in the Ali-Liston rematch.

Randy Neumann I believe was a former Heavyweight Fighter, and he was a pretty decent and fair referee for the most part. He's one of the only fighters I can think of who became a solid official in any noteworthy capacity.

Mills Lane too

[John]

Most of the awful refs and judges were ex boxers…: usually low level ones with a chip

ditto

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

no, and ex fighters/current fighters give awful takes, predictions, and scores all the time too, lets not forget. the bad judging in boxing is benefitting the a-side so much that it clearly goes way beyond how each judge reads a fight. there is a systemic bias in place that benefits the bigger money side. that's what the big issue is. otherwise incompetant judges would be splitting bad decisions far more evenly

in fact, im sometimes in awe of people who have spent so much time as boxers can have such awful takes and so little insight. fighters, as much as, if not more than none fighters, are absolutely filled with cliched views.

the dumbest thing ive ever heard on commentary was not from any microphone warrior, but from former hw challenger jameel mccline, who said he thought tomas adamek would struggle with kevin mcbride's "heavyweight speed" (and this was well after mcbride's tyson win). for those of you who've seen mcbride, you know why that's laughable .......

believe it or not, adamek had no problems with kev's heavyweight speed

- Oddly enough Jerry Quarry gave the best heavywt breakdown commentary of all commentaries along with Big George, ie they could've been judges save for being too big the for the position.

What boxing judging needs besides more honest judges and referees is open scoring so the fight teams and fans can know the score which should eliminate the fraudulent 10 point scoring system to score winning rounds and tied rounds.

Yeah, right!!!!!!!!!

Bottom line is boxing is the ultimate gambling sport, and the overseers are gonna make sure they are compensated no matter the hamhanded oversight as exemplified by the sheer fraudulent idiocy Manny/Floydy officiating.

[coneye]

Trained one guy , he had 11 ameteur fights , took up boxing at 20-21 , suffered his first loss in his 11th ameteur fight , at the national titles where he lost a split and won silver medal , not a bad effort , he then turned pro , off the top of my head think his record was about 14-4 -0 winning south pacific title ,

Also another guy , won 3-4 state titles , finished when he won Aussie title once again guseeing but think his record was about 65 ameteur fights 50 odd wins .

What do they both have in common , both are now ref and judges , and both excellent referees , both just seem to know instinctivly when to step in and when to let it go , but then again .

BOTH ARE THE WORST JUDGES YOU HAVE EVER SEEN , I've spoke to both about it and told them they always favor guys who fought like they did , , one was an out and out scrapper , brawler , strong street fighter with a kill at all cost mentality , the other was a technical mover , who did'nt like getting hit so much , and BOTH LOVE TO WATCH REPLICAS OF THEMSELVES

End result i think having been in the ring certainly helps with refereeing , but regards judging , just know the rules its black and white when the rules are adhered too