Fight Score - Loma Vs Haney - 880 Entries

[Smash]

No, you objectively can't say that with 100% certainty.

about as certain as the sun rising tomorrow

[IronDanHamza]

It means that at least one of the judges was getting it wrong. They've all got their own formulas for arriving at the decision that they were paid to reach. What, do you think the judges are infallible and incorruptible?

Not to mention, none of the judges would agree that the round they scored one way "could have easily gone to the other fighter.". The fighter that gets the 10 needs to be the winner of the round in the judge's mind. If it could go either way, that's the literal definition of an even round, and is supposed to be scored that way.

Judges getting it wrong doesn't mean that there's not a correct winner to the round or the fight. That logic suggests that the Tony Weeks, Adelaide Byrd, Dave Moretti, etc are just as objective and valid as anyone else, and that's clearly false.

So let's just get this straight here then, your line of thinking is, every round should be scored unanimously by all 3 judges?

There shouldn't be a scenario where the judges are split?

[IronDanHamza]

a win for haney

if he didnt win 7 clear rounds it wasnt a win for him

How do you work that out?

It was a win for him because there's 7 rounds that he arguably won and he got the decision therefore he won the fight.

[IronDanHamza]

about as certain as the sun rising tomorrow

You can make that assumption but that's all it would be; An assumption.

[crimsonfalcon07]

So let's just get this straight here then, your line of thinking is, every round should be scored unanimously by all 3 judges?

There shouldn't be a scenario where the judges are split?

Of course not. But each individual judge should be thinking that each round either has a winner, or is even, and scoring even rounds as even. No judge should be saying "oh hey, this is a 'swing round' so I'm gonna give it to my favorite fighter because I got paid to, etc". Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes that's deliberate. Other times it's because boxing has fought to ensure that the scoring can remain closed and subjective so that the powers that be can manipulate the fights for money. Etc. But there's no accountability, and a lot of those bad decisions are possible at least in part because of prevailing attitudes that judges are allowed to do whatever they want in close rounds because they don't understand the rules.

Even if it's not corruption, you get bias coming from ****** attitudes like "to be the champ you have to beat the champ means you have to wrest the title from his hands.". Then you get judges thinking, "well, this was close so I'm going to score it for the champ."

But that's not what it means. Great example would be one of the comebacks for Sugar Ray Leonard. He won the title from Marvelous Marvin Hagler on a widely disputed split decision (also involving Dave Moretti, by the way). Then two fights later, he retained his title in a fight that ended in a tie against Thomas Hitman Hearns. One of the greatest ever to do it, and he demonstrated both that you can get the belt from the champ on a close, controversial fight (with Dave Moretti as judge), and that you keep the belt in the event of a tie if you're the champ.

The moral of the story is probably that Dave Moretti should never be permitted to judge again.

[IronDanHamza]

Of course not. But each individual judge should be thinking that each round either has a winner, or is even, and scoring even rounds as even. No judge should be saying "oh hey, this is a 'swing round' so I'm gonna give it to my favorite fighter because I got paid to, etc". Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes that's deliberate. Other times it's because boxing has fought to ensure that the scoring can remain closed and subjective so that the powers that be can manipulate the fights for money. Etc. But there's no accountability, and a lot of those bad decisions are possible at least in part because of prevailing attitudes that judges are allowed to do whatever they want in close rounds because they don't understand the rules.

Even if it's not corruption, you get bias coming from ****** attitudes like "to be the champ you have to beat the champ means you have to wrest the title from his hands.". Then you get judges thinking, "well, this was close so I'm going to score it for the champ."

But that's not what it means. Great example would be one of the comebacks for Sugar Ray Leonard. He won the title from Marvelous Marvin Hagler on a widely disputed split decision (also involving Dave Moretti, by the way). Then two fights later, he retained his title in a fight that ended in a tie against Thomas Hitman Hearns. One of the greatest ever to do it, and he demonstrated both that you can get the belt from the champ on a close, controversial fight (with Dave Moretti as judge), and that you keep the belt in the event of a tie if you're the champ.

The moral of the story is probably that Dave Moretti should never be permitted to judge again.

Nobody thinks "Oh this is a swing round", but when the judges are split, that usually means that the round was very close, meaning it could be scored either way, meaning it was a "swing round".

This isn't some new concept, this has been an ongoing occurrence throughout the the entirety of boxing history.

[crimsonfalcon07]

Nobody thinks "Oh this is a swing round", but when the judges are split, that usually means that the round was very close, meaning it could be scored either way, meaning it was a "swing round".

This isn't some new concept, this has been an ongoing occurrence throughout the the entirety of boxing history.

TBH this is starting to look like we've got a different definitional starting point. I'm coming at this from the standpoint of how it's supposed to be scored as per the rules, and it sounds like you are talking from a "practical" standpoint from the perspective of how decisions appear to fans. Is that what you're trying to say?

Because "swing rounds" do not exist in the rules, and neither do "close rounds", and the notion that a close round can legitimately go to either guy doesn't appear anywhere, and certainly isn't supported by the dictionary definition of 'close'.

However, 'close' or 'competitive' rounds do frequently get scored opposite by different judges. I suspect we have a difference of opinion about why that is, and how legitimate the results are stemming from those decisions, but if that's what you're talking about, then ok. We can agree to disagree on the value of those and whether it's legitimate for them to be assigned via bias to a particular fighter, but l will agree those could be called "swing rounds", even if I do not think the rules support the interpretation that they can legitimately go to either fighter.

[IronDanHamza]

TBH this is starting to look like we've got a different definitional starting point. I'm coming at this from the standpoint of how it's supposed to be scored as per the rules, and it sounds like you are talking from a "practical" standpoint from the perspective of how decisions appear to fans. Is that what you're trying to say?

Because "swing rounds" do not exist in the rules, and neither do "close rounds", and the notion that a close round can legitimately go to either guy doesn't appear anywhere, and certainly isn't supported by the dictionary definition of 'close'.

However, 'close' or 'competitive' rounds do frequently get scored opposite by different judges. I suspect we have a difference of opinion about why that is, and how legitimate the results are stemming from those decisions, but if that's what you're talking about, then ok. We can agree to disagree on the value of those and whether it's legitimate for them to be assigned via bias to a particular fighter, but l will agree those could be called "swing rounds", even if I do not think the rules support the interpretation that they can legitimately go to either fighter.

They don't need to exist in the rules.

It's a 10 point must system, the winner get's 10 and the loser gets 9 outside of a KD or an extremely dominant round.

So in the case of a close round to which there's an argument for either fighter winning, there's a debate on which way the judge would have scored it. That is a swing round.

But yes I think it seems we are closer to the same page now.

[crimsonfalcon07]

They don't need to exist in the rules.

It's a 10 point must system, the winner get's 10 and the loser gets 9 outside of a KD or an extremely dominant round.

So in the case of a close round to which there's an argument for either fighter winning, there's a debate on which way the judge would have scored it. That is a swing round.

But yes I think it seems we are closer to the same page now.

Not quite. The rules specifically acknowledge even rounds and that those are to be scored 10-10, absent point deductions. Commissions do tend to suggest to judges that they not use them as crutches rather than make hard decisions, but even rounds are specifically in the rules and close/swing rounds are not.

A judge should be able to explain, relative to the four judging criteria, why one fighter took the round over the other, and if they cannot, or if they believe there's an equivalently good argument for the other side, the round is supposed to be scored even, not as a gimme for the judge's preferred fighter. When there's an equivalently good argument for either side to take the round, that is definitionally an even round, not a swing round.

I define a swing round as one that a fan isn't sure how to judge, and wouldn't be surprised if a judge picked one side over the other either way. But that is a FAR cry from that being how a judge is supposed to approach the round, and has no bearing on the legitimacy of the decision.

[BodyBagz]

Close fights happen
The definition of a close fight is one where the scores/winner could have gone either way.
Close does not mean robbery (sorry GGGroupies )

Examples of clear robberies -
DLH vs Tito
Pac vs Timmy
Pea vs JCC
Pea vs JLR
Pac vs HORN (CPGW)