Why Can't Bad Decisions Be Overturned?

[Anthony342]

So we've all seen questionable to obviously horrible jobs of judging in boxing history. So my question is why can't someone step in and overturn a bad decision, especially when it's so obvious? I've heard people say it's because of people g ambling on a fight, so here's my answer to that. What about when a boxer wins a fight and it's found out afterwards he tests positive for a banned substance? The win gets overturned to a No Contest. So why not overturn a bad decision? Why not just have someone step in after a fight, investigate/rewatch it, then overturn the crappy decision, followed by banning the bad judges? Or at least a suspension for a first offense. Then after it's decided, they pay out the g ambling winnings. If they wanted to, those in charge could easily do the right thing. Just like how Bud Selig could've easily given Armando Galaragga a perfect game in 2010. Even umpire Jim Joyce pointed out he blew that call, as pointed out in the recent 30 for 30 documentary.

[JAB5239]

So we've all seen questionable to obviously horrible jobs of judging in boxing history. So my question is why can't someone step in and overturn a bad decision, especially when it's so obvious? I've heard people say it's because of people ******** on a fight, so here's my answer to that. What about when a boxer wins a fight and it's found out afterwards he tests positive for a banned substance? The win gets overturned to a No Contest. So why not overturn a bad decision? Why not just have someone step in after a fight, investigate/rewatch it, then overturn the crappy decision, followed by banning the bad judges? Or at least a suspension for a first offense. Then after it's decided, they pay out the ******** winnings. If they wanted to, those in charge could easily do the right thing. Just like how Bud Selig could've easily given Armando Galaragga a perfect game in 2010. Even umpire Jim Joyce pointed out he blew that call, as pointed out in the recent 30 for 30 documentary.

I think boxing as a whole is more subjective than other sports. The examples I like to use is the first Chavez - Taylor fight and Tyson - Ruddock fights. Many thought Richard Steele blew those calls by stopping the fights. I thought they were not only good calls, but the right call. Doesn't matter how much time is left or if a fighters wants to continue. The refs job is to enforce a fair fight and protect the fighters. While many disagree, I think he did that.

Another example is the Whitaker - Chavez fight. From a judges perspective it's very subjective. Ring generalship, cleaner landing punches, who throws more, who's more effective etc. I thought Peas won easily. The judges daw a draw. Pep thinks Chavez deserved the nod. It's all in what you're looking for, and what you think is more important and better imposed on any particular night.

Lastly.....controversy sells. Take the Lewis - Holyfield fight 1. Lewis won that fight going away in my opinion. The judges scored a draw (I don't know how), but it made the rematch even bigger.

In order to impose the things you've suggested and for it to be successful you would need one ruling organization. Instead we have so many fans can't name all the champions in many divisions. Purge the ABC orgs and it would be a start. I have no idea how or who could pull that off though. Until then there will always be corruption and controversy.

[Willie Pep 229]

I think boxing as a whole is more subjective than other sports. The examples I like to use is the first Chavez - Taylor fight and Tyson - Ruddock fights. Many thought Richard Steele blew those calls by stopping the fights. I thought they were not only good calls, but the right call. Doesn't matter how much time is left or if a fighters wants to continue. The refs job is to enforce a fair fight and protect the fighters. While many disagree, I think he did that.

Another example is the Whitaker - Chavez fight. From a judges perspective it's very subjective. Ring generalship, cleaner landing punches, who throws more, who's more effective etc. I thought Peas won easily. The judges daw a draw. Pep thinks Chavez deserved the nod. It's all in what you're looking for, and what you think is more important and better imposed on any particular night.

Lastly.....controversy sells. Take the Lewis - Holyfield fight 1. Lewis won that fight going away in my opinion. The judges scored a draw (I don't know how), but it made the rematch even bigger.

In order to impose the things you've suggested and for it to be successful you would need one ruling organization. Instead we have so many fans can't name all the champions in many divisions. Purge the ABC orgs and it would be a start. I have no idea how or who could pull that off though. Until then there will always be corruption and controversy.

In regards to the Chavez Whitaker fight, I thought the draw was the best answer.** It was the Chavez-Taylor fight in which I thought Chavez should have won the decision (had there been one).

But I have no problem, I unserstand the point you were trying to make.

In regards to overturning bad decisions: if such an avenue was made available can one even come up with a fight were someone wouldn't have contested the outcome?

Every fight would be contested, and worst, at some point in the future a manager would be seen as remiss if he didn't challenge every decision. It would become standard practice.

I think it is a Pandora's Box. I say bring back official NDs, and use NWS decisions for the gamblers.

*** I have said in past: Whitaker had effectively stopped Chavez's attack, but never mounted one of his own. He only got half the job done. The draw was the best outcome. It was an 'expectations game' victory for Whitaker. He didn't beat the man.

[JAB5239]

In regards to the Chavez Whitaker fight, I thought the draw was the best answer.** It was the Chavez-Taylor fight in which I thought Chavez should have won the decision (had there been one).

But I have no problem, I unserstand the point you were trying to make.

In regards to overturning bad decisions: if such an avenue was made available can one even come up with a fight were someone wouldn't have contested the outcome?

Every fight would be contested, and worst, at some point in the future a manager would be seen as remiss if he didn't challenge every decision. It would become standard practice.

I think it is a Pandora's Box. I say bring back official NDs, and use NWS decisions for the gamblers.

*** I have said in past: Whitaker had effectively stopped Chavez's attack, but never mounted one of his own. He only got half the job done. The draw was the best outcome. It was an 'expectations game' victory for Whitaker. He didn't beat the man.

My apologies for any insinuation. We've gone round and round on this so many times my memory is not always on point. What I was getting at is the ABC orgs make it almost impossible to ensure there is no funny business. One sanctioning body in my opinion could eliminate this, or at the very least hold judges and refs accountable I used to argue this with my friend Scott9945 who is no longer with us unfortunately. My point is, there is to much wiggle room on what determines a winner of a fight and the sanctioning bodies make the waters murkier.

[QueensburyRules]

- - When Poppy fought Chad Dawson, he was getting whooped so badly that he literally tried to jump out the ring like he did for the first Allen fight, only this time on Ring apron while bursting into tears for other fights including his last where Just Another Joe Named Smith knocked clean out the ring onto the concrete floor where he burst into tears.

Ref rightly called it a TKO, but this being Califlakia with Oscar having their Commish under his thumb, they overturned the result a N/C.

[Biledriver]

My apologies for any insinuation. We've gone round and round on this so many times my memory is not always on point. What I was getting at is the ABC orgs make it almost impossible to ensure there is no funny business. One sanctioning body in my opinion could eliminate this, or at the very least hold judges and refs accountable I used to argue this with my friend Scott9945 who is no longer with us unfortunately. My point is, there is to much wiggle room on what determines a winner of a fight and the sanctioning bodies make the waters murkier.

And all judges inevitably have biases. There's never really been a set standard for judging rounds, unfortunately. Some judges like punchers, others like boxers.....and judge fights accordingly. Some will only give a 10-8 when there's a knockdown (even when one of the fighters got the everliving sh it beat out of him), others are more generous when a round is lopsided. Lack of judging standards has been professional boxing's bane for as long as I remember.

[Anthony342]

I think boxing as a whole is more subjective than other sports. The examples I like to use is the first Chavez - Taylor fight and Tyson - Ruddock fights. Many thought Richard Steele blew those calls by stopping the fights. I thought they were not only good calls, but the right call. Doesn't matter how much time is left or if a fighters wants to continue. The refs job is to enforce a fair fight and protect the fighters. While many disagree, I think he did that.

Another example is the Whitaker - Chavez fight. From a judges perspective it's very subjective. Ring generalship, cleaner landing punches, who throws more, who's more effective etc. I thought Peas won easily. The judges daw a draw. Pep thinks Chavez deserved the nod. It's all in what you're looking for, and what you think is more important and better imposed on any particular night.

Lastly.....controversy sells. Take the Lewis - Holyfield fight 1. Lewis won that fight going away in my opinion. The judges scored a draw (I don't know how), but it made the rematch even bigger.

In order to impose the things you've suggested and for it to be successful you would need one ruling organization. Instead we have so many fans can't name all the champions in many divisions. Purge the ABC orgs and it would be a start. I have no idea how or who could pull that off though. Until then there will always be corruption and controversy.

Then put someone in charge who will weed out the corruption. If they wanted to do it, they would. Whether or not Steele blew that call doesn't matter because Whitaker never responded to the ref, so he had no choice but to stop the fight. The judges in the Williams-Lara fight were suspended, so the governing body there knew they screwed up. So if they wanted to, they could've also changed the bad decision there. And I was even a Paul Williams fan too and didn't think he won that fight. Financial interests shouldn't matter either. We see this in politics and social interests all the time too. People deliberately don't do the right thing because it will make more money to not do the right thing. But in the long run, money can still be made doing the right thing, that's what people don't seem to get. Put people in charge who are willing to do the hard work. Not lazy, corrupt idiots.

[Biledriver]

My apologies for any insinuation. We've gone round and round on this so many times my memory is not always on point. What I was getting at is the ABC orgs make it almost impossible to ensure there is no funny business. One sanctioning body in my opinion could eliminate this, or at the very least hold judges and refs accountable I used to argue this with my friend Scott9945 who is no longer with us unfortunately. My point is, there is to much wiggle room on what determines a winner of a fight and the sanctioning bodies make the waters murkier.

I was thinking, too, that judges are invariably influenced by which fighter belongs to the promoter, and it shades their perceptions. Everybody likes to bi tch about the "governing bodies", but the governing bodies have never had any real power on their own: They've always been puppets of the promoters and dance to their tune. Whenever you saw the WBA or WBC do something shi tty, you could always bet that Don King or Bob Arum ect waved some Bemjamins.

[QueensburyRules]

And all judges inevitably have biases. There's never really been a set standard for judging rounds, unfortunately. Some judges like punchers, others like boxers.....and judge fights accordingly. Some will only give a 10-8 when there's a knockdown (even when one of the fighters got the everliving sh it beat out of him), others are more generous when a round is lopsided. Lack of judging standards has been professional boxing's bane for as long as I remember.

- - Judges, refs, Commish, and boxing scribes don't get drug tested.

Neither politicians and political figures, so it's a false conclusion that fighters are lessors that have to be drug tested by some strip mall drug testing operation that actors and politicos don't have to undergo.

[QueensburyRules]

Then put someone in charge who will weed out the corruption. If they wanted to do it, they would. Whether or not Steele blew that call doesn't matter because Whitaker never responded to the ref, so he had no choice but to stop the fight. The judges in the Williams-Lara fight were suspended, so the governing body there knew they screwed up. So if they wanted to, they could've also changed the bad decision there. And I was even a Paul Williams fan too and didn't think he won that fight. Financial interests shouldn't matter either. We see this in politics and social interests all the time too. People deliberately don't do the right thing because it will make more money to not do the right thing. But in the long run, money can still be made doing the right thing, that's what people don't seem to get. Put people in charge who are willing to do the hard work. Not lazy, corrupt idiots.

- -Maybe lady Lara shouldn’t have cowered on the ropes stinking up the ring.

Dont recall judges being suspended, but lady Lara was sure suspended floating on his own stink…