How can we stop Robberies in boxing??

by Waingro Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:37 am

It seems like there is a robbery every wek no in boxing and if a fighter is away from home he will get robbed. This has happened to so many British fighters in the last few weeks just ask Chisora, Khan, Macklin and Sturm and dont bet on Froch winning a decision against Ward!! And of course we all know how Lewis got robbed against Holyfield many years ago. They also say in boxing that you need a knock out just to get a draw in Germany and look at guys like Sturm and Ottke and Huck! So my question is how can we stop these robberies from happening?

In football and other sports they have neutral refs or judges so there is no bias. This should be in boxing too if you dont believe me look at the ref in the Hatton v Mayweather fight for example. Judges should be neutral too with no bias..

I things like the champions league they have home and away legs this could be an idea in some big boxing matches that there are two legs even if a fighter loses the first he has a rematch. Look at Haye against Wlad for example Haye had to fight in Germany maybe they could have had two matches one in Germany and one in England for such a big fight? This would not work in small fights though or ones where fighters are from the same country.

Maybe fight should be held in neutral countries so there is no bias from the crowds or officials? Look at the Super 6 Ward has every fight in America but Froch has had only one fight in Britain how is this fair? He fought Abraham in Finland which was neutral maybe they should have neutral for some big fights so there is no home advantage like in the final of the champions league?

They should also ban and suspend judges and refs who are biased and give hometown decision and these results should be changed. If the sport was fair they would have made Chisora the European champion why should Hellenius keep his belt when he got schooled?

If they did this there would be less robberies imo what other ideas do people have for getting rid of robberies in boxing?

by lovely_london Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:24 am

dont forget haye was robbed in his fight with klitschko

by talkingpickle Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:26 am

lovely_london wrote:dont forget haye was robbed in his fight with klitschko

Indeed, Vitali stamped on his toe in the dressing room.

by talkingpickle Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:32 am

Neutral ref and judges would be the way forward. I dont think 2 legs are a good idea, how long do boxers have to prepare for a fight?

by All Time Great Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:34 am

Just ignore split decisions. Most educated people know who was the real winner in a fight when the decision goes the wrong way(eg Mayweather vs Castillo, Chisora vs Helinus and Marquez vs Pacquiao). If a SD occurs, I feel an automatic rematch should be made pending on the defeated boxers choice.

by John Bloody Wayne Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:45 am

All Time Great wrote:Just ignore split decisions. Most educated people know who was the real winner in a fight when the decision goes the wrong way(eg Mayweather vs Castillo, Chisora vs Helinus and Marquez vs Pacquiao). If a SD occurs, I feel an automatic rematch should be made pending on the defeated boxers choice.

I'm not too keen on that last bit.

What did Oscar do to bring Mayweather to Mexico for a rematch? An SD doesn't always favour the winner.

by supremeskills Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:48 am

khan wasnt robbed,marquez was tho.

by Steffan Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:59 am

Why not have an official judging association. If a judge gives a blatent robbery then he needs to explain himself. If he is blatently corrupt then he gets his licence removed

by manos de piedra Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:01 am

A decent start might be to learn how to distinguish a close fight from a robbery. Murray, Macklin and Khan were not robbed. These were close fights capable of going either way. In judging as we know it today, there is a healthy amount of subjectivity involved which means there will be variations in scoring and interpretations. Although I may not always agree with particular scores and outcomes, I think the system in place is generally fine as I think to try and make it wholly objective, compubox-esque and structured is very hard to do in a sport like boxing with so many variables operating at the same time. I think to try and quantify everything would leave to th sport becoming much narrower and the loss of many diferent styles and techniques which add to the richness of the sport. I much prefer the pro system to the amateur system for instance. There is the potential for some streamlining here and there but I dont think wholesale changes are neccessary in terms of how fights are scored.

I think theres a wider issue with judging. I have read reports and studies which do indicate that there is a quite ignificant advantag from being at home that either subtley or not so subtley can influence judges. Crowd noises, psychology, preconceptions etc all of which can make a differnce. Having been at close fights mysself and scored a fight one way, and then retrospectively changed my mid when watching it again on tv I do think that there could be attempts to get a wider view of a fight. Perhaps 5 judges instead of 3, perhaps a mix of judges at ringside and those watching on tv feeds in isolation or allowing the referee back as a judge with a different perspective. I think things like that could be experimented with to see how the outcomes could make improvements.

With the judges themselves, I think obviously each country and commission should strive for the highest possible standrds and judging performances measured and monitored with that in mind. I dont think that is the case as it comes across as more of an old boys club where the top refs or judges seem almost immune from any kind of repurcussions on bad displays. Cortez, Parris, O'Connor and IJ Lewis for example. But for wholesale robberies such as the recent Chisora and Lara fights I think it can be a case of something more sinister as I find it just impossile to see how they can be scored as they were. Incompotence alone could not be the answer. I dont like the idea of retroacitely changing results because I think its too hard to regulet, opens too many controversial issues and isnt tackling the problem at source. The source is unacceptable judging and those found to fall below the lie on this should face suspensions and dismissals as well as having to fully explain themselves. I would prefer in these cases the commisions and sanctioning bodies took the common sense approach to arrange a rematch then where a result is blatantly incorrect.

I would also agree with your point that theres a good argument for neutral judges and refs to be appointed, especially in big fights to remove any perception or possibility of bias. But having all fights in neutral venues or having fights over two legs isnt feasible in my view. here is a tendancy with big countries like america to say "fighter x never left the States" but that doesnt equate to never leaving your home town. Fighters will fight where they can secure the highest level of interest in most cases. Why would the Klitschkos fight in front of smaller less interested audiences in the U.S is they can sell out big venues in Europe for instance?

by All Time Great Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:11 am

John Bloody Wayne wrote:
All Time Great wrote:Just ignore split decisions. Most educated people know who was the real winner in a fight when the decision goes the wrong way(eg Mayweather vs Castillo, Chisora vs Helinus and Marquez vs Pacquiao). If a SD occurs, I feel an automatic rematch should be made pending on the defeated boxers choice.

I'm not too keen on that last bit.

What did Oscar do to bring Mayweather to Mexico for a rematch? An SD doesn't always favour the winner.

I think what I'm really trying to elude to is where there has been an out an out robbery the boxing commissions should demand the fight is rematched. Such as Lara vs Williams etc.

Quick English lesson for you, you only use "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant.

by Steffan Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:26 am

[quote="All Time Great"]Quick English lesson for you, you only use "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant.[/quote

Quick dont be a pedantic wally lesson for you, there isnt really any need to preach spelling or grammar on here. Its an internet forum...

by Steffan Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:26 am

All Time Great wrote:Quick English lesson for you, you only use "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant.

Quick dont be a pedantic wally lesson for you, there isnt really any need to preach spelling or grammar on here. Its an internet forum...

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:28 am

Steffan wrote:
All Time Great wrote:Quick English lesson for you, you only use "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant.

Quick dont be a pedantic wally lesson for you, there isnt really any need to preach spelling or grammar on here. Its an internet forum...

don't*
isn't*
It's*

by Steffan Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:30 am

Scottrf wrote:don't*
isn't*
It's*

And when it comes to wallys...a prime example appears

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:33 am

Steffan wrote:
Scottrf wrote:don't*
isn't*
It's*

And when it comes to wallys...a prime example appears

Spoiler:

by Steffan Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:35 am

Scottrf wrote:
Spoiler:

Dont understand what it means sorry

by All Time Great Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:48 am

Steffan wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Spoiler:

Dont understand what it means sorry

I was just pulling his leg kid, didn't mean to cause you any offence. Nothing wrong with learning a few new things on a forum mind you.

by Steffan Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:50 am

All Time Great wrote:I was just pulling his leg kid, didn't mean to cause you any offence. Nothing wrong with learning a few new things on a forum mind you.

I was only having a laugh as well. Dont worry if I ever got offended by this forum I would of left after day 2 Laugh

by John Bloody Wayne Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:59 am

All Time Great wrote:
Quick English lesson for you, you only use "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant.

pare rău că nu vorbesc limba engleză

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:01 am

You're Romanian?

by Boxtthis Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:01 am

In reply to the OP: It's difficult to do anything too definite about scoring issues because, as Manos points out, there's a great deal of subjectivity involved. This gives leeway for large swings in scoring interpretation. So, fights that you adamantly label 'a robbery' could well just be an alternative interpretation. Unfortunately, the degree of subjectivity also gives a licence to people looking to deliberately manipulate the scoring system in order to make one fighter win. The fights you mention: Khan and Macklin were legitimately close fights, which you can't really call a robbery. But, there certainly have been decisions that I think are genuine robberies.

As I say, it's difficult to overhaul the scoring system without changing the very essence of boxing. What I would have is more transparency and accountability being enforced on judges. They should be able to explain exactly why they scored particular rounds to particular fighters, and if the score was contested, they should have to defend those decisions in front of a judges panel. If a judge is consistently wrong then they should have their licence revoked.

Problems with this are:

a) It might be too much work/money/organisation for governing bodies to do (although, practically, I'd only really insist on this level of stringency in bigger fights - which there's not that many of).

b) For the most part, the governing bodies are corrupt as hell and can't be trusted to be in any way fair.

by John Bloody Wayne Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:04 am

Scottrf wrote:You're Romanian?

Buna ziua!

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:06 am

La tine pentru prea!

by John Bloody Wayne Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:08 am

Noi nu mai sunt la subiect

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:10 am

Adevărat.

by All Time Great Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:13 am

Hon meh ni puttah, ki hoggia.

Looks like we have a bi-lingual forum!

by John Bloody Wayne Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:18 am

Anyone ever figure out what language waingro speaks?

by manos de piedra Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:21 am

One thing I will say, which I forgot to mention in my above post, is in relation to the 10 point scoring system. I definately think this could be tweaked or experimented with in a different ways.

In boxing there are very often extremelly close rounds that might go to one fighter by the narrowest of margins. Judges are generally notorious for their reluctance to score rounds drawn so often 50/50 rounds will go one way or the other. On the flip side, a fighter who has just lost a razor thin round can go out and dominate the next round but still only recive the same score. Thus you could have fight where one fighter dominates 3 rounds but loses the fight because the other 9 rounds were basically really close and went to the other guy which is kind of unsatisfying.

I think judges shoud utilise the 10 point system a bit more freely as you hardly ever see a 10-8 given for a round with no knockdown even though it may warrant a 10-8 due to one fighter dominating it.

by Boxtthis Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:42 am

manos de piedra wrote:One thing I will say, which I forgot to mention in my above post, is in relation to the 10 point scoring system. I definately think this could be tweaked or experimented with in a different ways.

In boxing there are very often extremelly close rounds that might go to one fighter by the narrowest of margins. Judges are generally notorious for their reluctance to score rounds drawn so often 50/50 rounds will go one way or the other. On the flip side, a fighter who has just lost a razor thin round can go out and dominate the next round but still only recive the same score. Thus you could have fight where one fighter dominates 3 rounds but loses the fight because the other 9 rounds were basically really close and went to the other guy which is kind of unsatisfying.

I think judges shoud utilise the 10 point system a bit more freely as you hardly ever see a 10-8 given for a round with no knockdown even though it may warrant a 10-8 due to one fighter dominating it.

Absolutely agree with the sentiment of this. Imagine how exciting this would make things, if boxers knew they could turn the fight on the cards by putting in a few dominant rounds. Fighters would really be going for it, and it would be much harder to 'steal' a fight. On the other hand, it would probably increase the subjective gaps between scoring, and would be an even bigger licence for dodgy judges to sway fights by exaggerating the dominance of certain rounds. Basically i don't think it would cut down on instances of 'robbery' by itself - that would need tighter control and accountability enforced on the judging system.

Although, it would be interesting to start a thread on here and see how people scored some classic decision-won fights according to this system.

by milkyboy Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:31 pm

You need to do more research waingro. Most fights are already over 2 legs, it would be a disadvantage to fight on just one leg in terms of mobility and leveraging punches. This in part explains the limited number of amputees to have cut the mustard at the highest level.

There are rumours that coopman was legless when he fought ali, but i've seen the fight on youtube and he definitely had 2 legs, although they may have been wooden ones.

by **oxring** Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:32 pm

manos de piedra wrote:One thing I will say, which I forgot to mention in my above post, is in relation to the 10 point scoring system. I definately think this could be tweaked or experimented with in a different ways.

In boxing there are very often extremelly close rounds that might go to one fighter by the narrowest of margins. Judges are generally notorious for their reluctance to score rounds drawn so often 50/50 rounds will go one way or the other. On the flip side, a fighter who has just lost a razor thin round can go out and dominate the next round but still only recive the same score. Thus you could have fight where one fighter dominates 3 rounds but loses the fight because the other 9 rounds were basically really close and went to the other guy which is kind of unsatisfying.

I think judges shoud utilise the 10 point system a bit more freely as you hardly ever see a 10-8 given for a round with no knockdown even though it may warrant a 10-8 due to one fighter dominating it.

Absolutely agree - and I could definitely see arguments for fights like Pacquiao-Marquez 3 falling somewhere in this category. When Marquez was winning rounds - he was winning big, whereas for Manny, if at all, it was edging rounds on workrate and aggression. The overall feeling after the fight is that JMM won - but from the refs perspectives counting up the rounds at the end - he didn't.

We don't do "overall" scores - where after the fight we score how we generally saw the event - and that's probably a good thing. However - more drawn rounds would lead to fairer contests IMO.

by quentins_monkey Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:33 pm

As has already been suggested, I think neutral judges sat away from ringside watching the fight on tv (with no crowd noises/distractions to sway their decisions).

I also like the idea of judges being required to justify their scoring in the event of a 'robbery'...

Smile

by AlexHuckerby Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:34 pm

Loving the first two posts, complete and utter WUMs... I can't believe people are discussing this.

by Rowley Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:43 pm

Waingro wrote:It seems like there is a robbery every wek no in boxing and if a fighter is away from home he will get robbed. This has happened to so many British fighters in the last few weeks just ask Chisora, Khan, Macklin and Sturm and dont bet on Froch winning a decision against Ward!!

Good point, five fights listed, three were close enough to go either way and one hasn't happenend yet. As Meat Loaf nearly said, one out of five ain't bad.

by **88Chris05** Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:43 pm

Chuck Minker (former head of the Nevada State Athletic Commission) had the right idea. After any fight decision deemed in any way controversial, he used to make the appointed judges sit down with him a few days later, watch the fight a couple of times over, and explain to him exactly why / how they scored each round to whichever fighter they did. Could have done with that after the Vegas travesty which was Marquez-Pacquiao III.

Sadly, after he died, this went out of practice, and no other States have used the template. Might encourage judges to actually do their job instead of thinking about what decision they 'should' come to beforehand if they actually knew they'd have to explain their incompetence.

by AlexHuckerby Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:45 pm

Chris while thats possible I think that boxing is so subjective that I think judges could still blag there way out of it...

by **88Chris05** Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:48 pm

AlexHuckerby wrote:Chris while thats possible I think that boxing is so subjective that I think judges could still blag there way out of it...

Perhaps in some cases, but do you honestly think that the judges of, say, Whitaker-Ramirez I or Tiberi-Toney could in any way, shape or form justify those decisions if asked to sit down with the governing bodies and rewatch the fights? I don't. Would be a good way to weed out the clearly inept / corrupt judges, but as I said it's unlikely we'll ever see such a practice again.

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:50 pm

Ramirez was showing aggression, controlling the centre of the ring etc

by coxy0001 Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:50 pm

They should have 9 judges.

More judges = less chance of 2 having a nightmare and providing a shocker of a result.

Either that or threaten them with a firing squad if they go against everyone else opinion who saw the fight i.e. Pacquiao vs Marquez III (and the other 2, more so the first)

by **88Chris05** Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:52 pm

Scottrf wrote:Ramirez was showing aggression, controlling the centre of the ring etc

A perfect example of why you'd be immediately sacked, Scott!

by Rowley Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:56 pm

It is difficult and will never truly be eradicated because scoring fights is subjective so you have to bear this in mind and in most cases big fights are big fights because they are even match ups and as such many of the rounds will be close.

However, am not sure if this is the case but was certainly true some years ago that the promoters paid the refs out of their pockets, if this is the case this needs to stop because if you are getting a free paid weekend in Vegas with a generous expenses accoutn and the promoter is kind enough to throw in first class travel at some level even subconsciously you are going to want the gig again and could be swayed to do the "right" thing on the cards.

However robberies are less frequent than made out and as I said earlier of the five mentioned only one really counts as a robbery, however do feel when something like this happens there has to be something that can be done other than a promoter having a bit of a moan.

by **Union Cane** Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:58 pm

Chisora wasn't robbed.

by **88Chris05** Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Union Cane wrote:Chisora wasn't robbed.

Where's Scott with one of his spoilers when you need him?

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Union Cane wrote:Chisora wasn't robbed.

by **Union Cane** Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:02 pm

Spoiler:

by Rowley Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:02 pm

Haven't seen it Union, was basing it on the consensus view which puts you very much in the minority, know Boxing News had it 118-113.

by **Union Cane** Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:04 pm

I wonder what the consensus view in Finland would be?

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:04 pm

Union Cane wrote:
Spoiler:

None of which is in the scoring system, you're rewriting rules to try and justify it.

95%+ of people thought Chisora won, 90% of them thought he won big, it was a robbery.

The fight wasn't close. I'm wondering if you even watched it.

by Scottrf Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:06 pm

Union Cane wrote:I wonder what the consensus view in Finland would be?

That Chisora won. I've read comments from Finnish posters. There are about 3 people I've seen try to justify it all by the 'you have to dominate the rounds clearly away from home' even though there was no way to give most of them to Helenius.

by **Union Cane** Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:06 pm

It was nice debating with you Scott.

by Sponsored content