Comments Thread For: The anatomy of a controversial decision

[BoxingUpdates]

Referee Tom Schrek investigates why there are so many contentious decisions in the sport we all love
[Click Here To Read More]

[wileyhemi]

Judges are directed by the governing bodies to avoid scoring even rounds if at all possible and they almost never do. This leads to ****** decisions where the judges favour one fighter on even rounds and his opponent who wins more one sided rounds gets robbed

[Boxing 112]

"Some TV folks seem to score really well, but not all of them. Viewers tend to believe what they hear. It is entertainment when you’re on the couch. When you’re judging, you are trying to see everything, concentrate on it, and evaluate it in the moment. You have no outside data, no differing opinion, and no analysis except your own. It is not the same thing as taking in a fight for enjoyment.

If you want to score at home, you absolutely must turn off the sound, ignore CompuBox numbers, and don’t watch the replays or the TV judge’s score. It affects you even when you think it doesn’t. To score a fight like a real judge, view it as much as you can like a real judge"

What i have mentioned before. I think commentary and pundits playing a part in influencing a viewers opinion on who won what round, especially if it's a close round.

I would want to see some media or network do a study; get some long term boxing fans or ex boxers or judges not working the fight, to live judge each round. Without sound or compu box stats.

Another study, where people watch different network streams e.g dazn and espn when they are showing the same card (e.g riyadh season) and see the outcome of their scorecards

And see what patterns there may be

[caverguj]

Whoever is the betting favorite/A side fighter, judges score close rounds to them. That's all it is.

[angkag]

Regarding turning off the sound, ringside judges must surely be influenced when the crowd cheers everything one boxer does, even if its ineffective throwing vs a skilled defence.

[Marchegiano]

most of these excuses are lame. You think we don't pay attention to early rounds? get out of here guy.

[Sid-Knee]

Whoever is the betting favorite/A side fighter, judges score close rounds to them. That's all it is.

It's not just the close rounds. It's even one sided rounds. Just look at fights like Barboza vs McComb and Hughes vs Kambosos. Both Hughes and McComb dominated and won the rounds clearly. But the A side still got the robbery decision.

The patterns in the US have been the same way for decades. The one they want to win, will get the decision no matter how they're beaten. It's straight corruption to it's core. Even A side fighters get ripped off over there if it benefits the American or Mexican. It's always been this way. But over the past 6 years, it's become even more psychotic. The promoters over there need to keep their stable winning in these times so they've ramped up the robberies. They've ramped them up, hard. It's non stop now. It's disgusting.

[THC]

The piece trivializes corruption as a factor in ridiculous decisiions as if the Game of Business is subordinated to contrasting styles, broadcasting commentary, human judges, etc. No, the structure and rules of boxing are maintained solely for abuse by promoters and sanctioning bodies. Please do not gaslight fans with this drivel, and poorly written drivel at that.