Helenius, Chisora and the referee's comments

http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/d/d6/HeleniusChisora2.jpg

Don't know if you've seen this - but the referee added the statement "Exciting, lot of action fight. The challenger controlled the fight and at least deserved a draw".

Do people know of other examples where the referee has added a closing statement that criticises judges' performance?

Interesting score cards there... I think i might re-watch the fight and see how badly they actually did.

Thanks for posting, I didn't even know that referees posted comments at the end of a fight.

I've never seen the fight so would be good to watch it and see how they scored it

Doesn't help the L on Chisoras record. Boxing is F**** we all know that. Robberies are more common now as it's a sport in decline and anyone seen as a remote "Cash Cow" gets the nod in any fight where he can get away with it. People think it's OK Chisora got jobbed as he got the Vitali shot anyway, it isn'.Helenius was shown up as a glorified Biker and hasn't got the decency to admit it. But I still love boxing, honest haha

Are robberies really more common now? I cant honestly say I have noticed an increase in them since I began watching boxing. And they appear to have been present in almost every era for one reason or another.

Still not convinced that this was a robbery.

For the referee to say "The challenger controlled the fight and at least deserved a draw" means that he is as bad as the judges then, surely, as if Chisora controlled the fight he would have surely deserved a win?

Is 'controlling the fight' now the criteria by which fights should be judged?

And should 'controlling the fight' mean that you must get at least a draw?

It's muddle and confusion like this that is killing the game, not the fact that people think Chisora was robbed when he wasn't.

interesting how if they gave chisora one more round it would have been a draw.

did the ref fill in all of these scores? the writing is the same. i didnt know they did that.

I thought Chisora won by at least three/four rounds, thought he was robbed. Think the ref is trying to give him the his due while trying to keep his job at the same time.

I saw the fight and I have to say I thought Chisora won handily.

There is an increasing tendancy it seems to declare various close fights a robbery but this one definately fell into the robbery bracket for me. I struggled to give Helenius 4 rounds.

Where is he criticising the judges performance????

Giving his opinion...not saying the judging was poor....

Reading too much into it!!

Glad Chisora lost........vile specimen who gets trashed in his next fight nice and early..

I know Warren seems to be taking over this site...but no more of garbage articles like this please..

manos de piedra wrote:
There is an increasing tendancy it seems to declare various close fights a robbery

Agreed. The Macklin V Sturm fight is the one that gets bandied around the most on here. That was the very definition of a close and hard fought fight that could be, and was, scored very differently according to 'taste'. Not a robbery in sight. Helenius v Chisora was nothing like that, it was so obviously scored for wrong guy, it deservedly gets labelled as a robbery.

Chisora is vile, but he was still jobbes. Union, i think you are just scoring it wrong, someone doesn't have to have their opponent down 8 times and on the cusp of being KO'd to be robbed. Chisora out thre outlanded, outworked, out muscled and his punches were scoring blows. This in most of the rounds, he out landed him in every single round Union, every round and his work wasn't sloppy. Your ability to score a fight just cost you one notch on my "Unions knowledge about boxing" ladder, but don't worry, not many people are interested in my ladder hahaha

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:
There is an increasing tendancy it seems to declare various close fights a robbery

Agreed. The Macklin V Sturm fight is the one that gets bandied around the most on here. That was the very definition of a close and hard fought fight that could be, and was, scored very differently according to 'taste'. Not a robbery in sight. Helenius v Chisora was nothing like that, it was so obviously scored for wrong guy, it deservedly gets labelled as a robbery.

thanks Willows, i agree totally.

alos Lara Williams last year was dispicable.

It's not just robberies. fighters get lopsided decisions 120-108 type wins in so many fights nowadays, when it shold be 115-113 11-112 type scores. No one seems to care but these things matter. One is a drubbing and one is a hard fought battle that might have gone either way; big difference

Seanusarrilius wrote:Chisora is vile, but he was still jobbes. Union, i think you are just scoring it wrong, someone doesn't have to have their opponent down 8 times and on the cusp of being KO'd to be robbed. Chisora out thre outlanded, outworked, out muscled and his punches were scoring blows. This in most of the rounds, he out landed him in every single round Union, every round and his work wasn't sloppy. Your ability to score a fight just cost you one notch on my "Unions knowledge about boxing" ladder, but don't worry, not many people are interested in my ladder hahaha

?

You don't know how I scored the fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Where is he criticising the judges performance????

Giving his opinion...not saying the judging was poor....

Reading too much into it!!

Glad Chisora lost........vile specimen who gets trashed in his next fight nice and early..

I know Warren seems to be taking over this site...but no more of garbage articles like this please..

i think these articles are the most interesting. just like the pics of khan/peterson cards. gives us an insight into the behind the scenes stuff - in my opinio much better than 'who's better tyson or ali' type topics.

But no where does the referee criticise the judges performance..

So it's an incorrect summation of what he actually said!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But no where does the referee criticise the judges performance..

So it's an incorrect summation of what he actually said!

If you want to get technical - at no point does the referee overtly say the decision was wrong.

However - he is writing underneath 3 opinions, where 2 of them have awarded the fight to Helenius - and stating his opinion that Chisora deserved to do better.

Union Cane wrote:Still not convinced that this was a robbery.

This one was a damn site clearer than Manny-Marquez 3 - and most people are shouting about that result as though it was worse than Lara-Williams - which is probably the worst I've seen in a while.

In truth - decisions like Chisora-Helenius are a side effect of a round-by-round scoring system. The 2 judges who awarded the fight to Helenius gave him every single close round.

The rounds Chisora took - he won by a country mile - whereas Helenius sneaked rounds at best. If you were going to score on the balance of the fight - you'd have to say that Chisora won - but decisions aren't made like that.

The 10point scoring system is a clunky, awkward system that leaves itself open to causing robberies - but is still probably better than all the others that have been tried.

Union Cane wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:Chisora is vile, but he was still jobbes. Union, i think you are just scoring it wrong, someone doesn't have to have their opponent down 8 times and on the cusp of being KO'd to be robbed. Chisora out thre outlanded, outworked, out muscled and his punches were scoring blows. This in most of the rounds, he out landed him in every single round Union, every round and his work wasn't sloppy. Your ability to score a fight just cost you one notch on my "Unions knowledge about boxing" ladder, but don't worry, not many people are interested in my ladder hahaha

?

You don't know how I scored the fight.

I know you didn't think it was a robbery, which it was, ergo, you scored it wrong

Couldn't care less what the ref said TRUSS and you are pretty right with your assertion. I just don't agree with Union

Have said it before but the most practical solution I ever saw suggested was by Claude Abrahams in that the ten point must stays in place but is employed more flexibly so if a knockdown occurs but other than that the round is close or the guy getting knocked down had the better of it, call it a 10-9 or even an even round, similarly if a guy wins a round clearly but without a knockdown score it a 10-8, that way in a fight such as the Chisora Helenius fight if it was the case Dereck was winning his rounds clearly and Helenius was sneaking his the cards would reflect this (I have not seen the fight so can't comment on specifics)

I know people are going to say this is what is in place now but it is rarely applied, now if a round has a knockdown it gets scored 10-8 pretty much irrespective of what happened aside from that, similarly how often do you see a round without a knockdown scored anything other than 10-9, unless a guy is virtually beaten senseless for 3 minutes.

rowley wrote:Have said it before but the most practical solution I ever saw suggested was by Claude Abrahams in that the ten point must stays in place but is employed more flexibly so if a knockdown occurs but other than that the round is close or the guy getting knocked down had the better of it, call it a 10-9 or even an even round, similarly if a guy wins a round clearly but without a knockdown score it a 10-8, that way in a fight such as the Chisora Helenius fight if it was the case Dereck was winning his rounds clearly and Helenius was sneaking his the cards would reflect this (I have not seen the fight so can't comment on specifics)

I know people are going to say this is what is in place now but it is rarely applied, now if a round has a knockdown it gets scored 10-8 pretty much irrespective of what happened aside from that, similarly how often do you see a round without a knockdown scored anything other than 10-9, unless a guy is virtually beaten senseless for 3 minutes.

I absolutely agree.

When do you ever see a round get called "even" any more? Its nearly always 10-9.

And you have shut-out rounds where the other guy barely lands a punch whilst taking massive punishment - and they get scored 10-9.

Its ridiculous - and should change - but I'm not sure it will. Becomes a bit subjective.

Needs uniform agreement or a single boxing body neither of which is likely

Most people I have seen on youtube, dwyer, bigragu, boxinginfo (all american), thought Chisora was absolutely robbed and scored it in the region of 9 rounds to 3.

Even boxingnews24 was reporting that Chisora got robbed and they are so anti-British its not even funny.

I honestly cannot see how you can score the fight to Helenius and I like to think i'm pretty open minded, thats a bit of a big stretch if you ask me.

Manny Marquez 3 was almost as bad, mind you Marquez is my favourite fighter...

ShahenshahG wrote:Needs uniform agreement or a single boxing body neither of which is likely

Not really - needs one major boxing organisation to decide to run with it - and to then gain the support of the fighters.

The balance of power in our sport has always been tenuous and complicated.

When small - you are controlled by your promoter. However, as you build awareness and a fan base - that relationship equalises - and your promoter has to work his bum off just to keep making money out of you - or you'll leave. Ref: Froch-Hennessy. When you first win a title - the sanctioning body owns you. If you lose your belt your worth halves.

When you're big enough - no-one cares about your belt anymore. Realistically - we're talking p4p top 3-5. Manny, Mayweather, Martinez. Would anybody care if Manny-Mayweather were to happen - and there wasn't a belt on the line? The sanctioning bodies would be begging the fighters to hold the belt.

Its the same with innovations in the sport. The governing body can hold them back if it wanted to - but if an innovation caught on with the fighters - the boxers will vote with their feet. Best example is the creation of the IBF. WBA/WBC politics were at a (then) all time low - so the IBF picked the Ring mag's #1/weight group and persuaded them to fight for their title. WBA/WBC left out in the cold and IBF gains legitimacy straight away.

Were our new scoring system in the equal best interest of both boxers (which I don't believe it is) - it would catch on.

For the record - I thought Chisora was extremely unlucky not to get the decision - and the fact that Helenius "won" every close round was shameful.

I think the ten point system is fine, its just not applied correctly in many cases. Realistically Chisora/Helenius was a stitch up for me and this has always happened in boxing and would happen under any scoring system. If you have blind/incompotent or corrupt judges then few scoring systems will save you. I beleive this was a case of gross incompetance/possibe corrption rather than a case of a poor scoring system.

The ten point must system is more flexible than some judges allow it to be.

A round with a knockdown dominated but the felled fighter can be scored 9-9, 10-8 with no knockdowns are also possible but 10-10 rounds aren't.

rowley wrote:Have said it before but the most practical solution I ever saw suggested was by Claude Abrahams in that the ten point must stays in place but is employed more flexibly so if a knockdown occurs but other than that the round is close or the guy getting knocked down had the better of it, call it a 10-9 or even an even round, similarly if a guy wins a round clearly but without a knockdown score it a 10-8, that way in a fight such as the Chisora Helenius fight if it was the case Dereck was winning his rounds clearly and Helenius was sneaking his the cards would reflect this (I have not seen the fight so can't comment on specifics)

I know people are going to say this is what is in place now but it is rarely applied, now if a round has a knockdown it gets scored 10-8 pretty much irrespective of what happened aside from that, similarly how often do you see a round without a knockdown scored anything other than 10-9, unless a guy is virtually beaten senseless for 3 minutes.

I think scoring fights on a round by round basis will always have an element of imbalance between nicking rounds vs wining rounds decisively. Its just the nature of round by round scoring. The ten point system is a little more flexible in catering for this but it also opens further subjectiveness to an already subjective area.

Ignoring knockdowns/deductions, what should constitute a 10-8 round? I would say opinions vary. For example the 10th round of the Maidana/Khan bout would certainly warrant a 10-8 to Maidana in my opinion. Khan was well dominated and hurt badly. But what about less obvious examples? For instance a typical Klitschko round might see Wlad thoroughly dominate the round behind a jab, but never really hurt his opponent or put him in imminent danger of a stoppage. Many of the rounds in the Pacquiao/Clottey fight were almost one way traffic but Clottey just covered up and survived without really being opened up. Are these kind of rounds worthy of 10-8 scores? I can see arguments both ways but my own opinion would probably to keep them 10-9 scores. However more flexible use of the 10 point system one could well argue a 10-8 round. Is winning a round clearly worthy of 10-8? Or does it go beyond winning clearly to include thoroughly dominating an opponent?

There are cases of the 10 point system throwing up wide scores in close overall contests by virtue of 12 close rounds being won by one fighter in the narrowest of margins. Equally it can make one sided fights appear closer when one fighter nicks a handful of rounds by a tiny margin but gets dominated in the others. I think this is just a production of scoring fights on a round by round basis and is somewhat inneviteable unless more even more subjective and complex round by round scoring systems are used. Given how subjective the scoring already is I would not really be in favour of potentially overcomplicating.

With regards the Chisora/Helenius fight though I dont think the outcome was down to a flawed scoring system in this case. It was just inept or impartial judging.

An interesting bout to discuss the pros/cons of the 10 point system is the Marquez/Pacquaio first fight. This fight was almost the reserse intention of the ten point system. It ended up that one good round for Pacquiao was worth more than three winning rounds for Marquez. Under the old round by round scoring Marquez would have won the fight by several rounds and some critics point to this bout as an example of the ten point system leading to a bit of an injustice and flawed representation of the overall fight. Supporters of the 10 point system view it as rewarding a fighter for decisively winning a round. But I have to say that I dont really agree with scoring a round any worse than 10-8. A 10-6 for one round is far too significant in a 12 round contest and goes against the spirit of round by round scoring in my view.

Manos, am far from suggesting the system is perfect but for me the Khan Maidana 10th is a perfect example, am not sure if it was called a 10-8 round, although I suspect not but is definitely a round where such a call would have been justified and certainly to my mind deserves to be differentiated on the score cards from a round where there someone only has marginally the better on a flurry or couple of punches. For me I would not be averse to seeing any clear round scored 10-8. Would incentivise fighters really going for it and avoid the temptation to coast or nick rounds.

I would definately agree on the Maidana/Khan example. Those kind of rounds should be a surefire 10-8. But I would forsee scoring competitive but clear rounds beyond that as presenting its own set of problems. Interpreting what qualifies as a 10-8, potentially overcomplicating scoring a fight and the impact it would have on bouts. Overall I would prefer to see the 10-8 underused than overused or become overly subjective. So personally I would only use it for very one sided and dominant rounds like the Maidana/Khan example. I think if one accepts the round by round scoring nature of boxing then one really has to embrace it as a series of short encounters within a fight. This by nature will lead to the problems associated with narrowly won rounds being as valuable as clearly won rounds. Otherwise potentially one would have to look away from round by round scoring altogether in favour of an alternative system.

rowley wrote:Manos, am far from suggesting the system is perfect but for me the Khan Maidana 10th is a perfect example, am not sure if it was called a 10-8 round, although I suspect not but is definitely a round where such a call would have been justified and certainly to my mind deserves to be differentiated on the score cards from a round where there someone only has marginally the better on a flurry or couple of punches. For me I would not be averse to seeing any clear round scored 10-8. Would incentivise fighters really going for it and avoid the temptation to coast or nick rounds.

FYI, all 3 judges scored the 10th 10-8 to Maidana. All 3 judges doing something correct at the same time, JESUS!

Cheers for the info Valero, good to know and as you say encouraging that three judges can manage to get something right at the same time!

Seanusarrilius wrote:I know you didn't think it was a robbery, which it was, ergo, you scored it wrong

Can't argue with logic like that.



Why are there three judges then, surely one would be enough, provided they scored the fight correctly?

I have just looked at the detailed score cards, well done for posting these.

If you look at each round separately and the judges' scorecards for that round, then if 2 or 3 judges score the round to Helenius then that counts as a round to Helenius. Similarly, if 2 or 3 judges score a round to Chisora, then that counts as a round to Chisora.

If you do this for each of the 12 rounds separately, then the fight ends up as a draw - 6 rounds to Helenius (1,2,3,5,7 & 12) and 6 rounds to Chisora (4,6,8,9,10,11).

Is this an improvement on the existing system? I leave it to others to comment.

In regards to having extra flexibility in 10-8 rounds, wouldn't that just lead to further injustices? The home fighter getting a 10-8 whenever it's feasible and the challenger only ever getting 10-9's?

Example being the final round of Leonard v Hearns II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSZQBM7JTI&feature=BFa&list=PL9C0B928A895ADB70&lf=results_video

Now Leonard did not dominate that final round. For the first minute Hearns bounced his head around with jabs and right hands, then in the second half Leonard hurt Hearns but Hearns held on and was punching back by the end of the round. No way was that a 10-8. The judge who scored it a draw scored it a 10-8. Had they scored it a 10-9, which it was, Hearns would've rightfully won.

The idea of having more 10-8 rounds would be good if we could trust judges but we clearly can't.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:In regards to having extra flexibility in 10-8 rounds, wouldn't that just lead to further injustices? The home fighter getting a 10-8 whenever it's feasible and the challenger only ever getting 10-9's?

Example being the final round of Leonard v Hearns II.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSZQBM7JTI&feature=BFa&list=PL9C0B928A895ADB70&lf=results_video

Now Leonard did not dominate that final round. For the first minute Hearns bounced his head around with jabs and right hands, then in the second half Leonard hurt Hearns but Hearns held on and was punching back by the end of the round. No way was that a 10-8. The judge who scored it a draw scored it a 10-8. Had they scored it a 10-9, which it was, Hearns would've rightfully won.

The idea of having more 10-8 rounds would be good if we could trust judges but we clearly can't.

I agree with you. Although I think the theory behind it would be more in regard to ideal world where judges could be trusted to score fairly and correctly. Thus the 10-8 round would be used properly. However in practice I think it complicates matters and opens up seperate issues. This is why I would only really advocate use of the 10-8 round in extremelly clear cut cases where one fighter dominates a round, as opposed to just winning it clearly but competitively. Also I think the issue with robberies lies with the judges rather than the scoring system. Almost any kind of round by round scoring system wil be at the mercy of judges and if they are too incompetant/impartial to score properly than robberies will occur no matter what.

Just an initial thought regarding the scoring.

Currently we have 3 judges and it is their combined opinion over the whole fight that gives the result.
But why used their combined opinion across the whole fight but not the rounds? Why not take the combined opinion at round level to
ensure there is consensus throughout each element/round of the fight.

Suggestion...
To win a round at least 2 judges need to score it a win for the same person without the other going for the opponent.
Once that is decided the actual score is 10 to the winner and the average of the 3 judges to the loser.
This will probably lead to more drawn rounds but if they are close and the judges split why not.

10-9, 10-9, 10-9 = 10-9
10-9, 10-9, 10-10 = 10-9

10-9, 10-9, 9-10 = 10-10 (not 10-9)

10-9, 10-10, 9-10 - 10-10
10-10, 10-10, 10-9 = 10-10
10-10, 10-10, 10-10 = 10-10

10-8, 10-8, 10-9 = 10-8
10-8, 10-9, 10-9 = 10-9
10-9, 10-8, 10-7 = 10-8

This would of course do away with split and majority decisions.

I think it would give a better overall view of how close a fight was.
Clear win rounds would get scored as 10-9 but close "nicked" rounds could have one judge score the other way giving a draw.

Using this method there is no need to change the way the judges score - just how those scores are used.

It's an idea skimpton, although if one judge has a round 10-9 and another has it 10-7, there is something seriously wrong...

I think that system would lead to too many drawn rounds which is something that boxing judges try to avoid.

Using your formula for Helenius Chisora...

1. 10-9
2. 10-9
3. 10-10
4. 9-10
5. 10-9
6. 10-10
7. 10-10
8. 9-10
9. 10-10
10. 10-10
11. 10-10
12. 10-10

Helenius wins 118-117.

Not exactly fool-proof then!

If the issue is poor judging or scoring then its unlikely to be saved by a new round by round scoring system.

For instance all three judges in the Helenius/Chisora fight scored the fist round for Helenius which I thought Chisora won quite clearly.

If fighters and results are being cost by inept/corrupt judging then I think thats where to start making the changes and improvements rather than trying to fit a system to accomodate substandard or biased judging.

I agree... but exactly why you apply the average.

Also I think this system would allow a Judge to be "judged" against the total fight.
Maybe introduce a judges score table that shows their performances for all their fights. This would allow them to be assessed/ranked and could be used to select the best Judges for the more important fights.

Nothing wrong with the system for me just the corrupt that use it.

No system will ever correct for bad/wrong/prejudiced judging, especially if 2 or all 3 of them are at it, but I believe this would help where it is close and genuine split unbiased opinion.

Another option would be to have 5 judges and ignore the 2 most extreme each way. This could be done on the overall fight or by round.
A lot of sports use this or a similar method.

But who would judge the judges?

Using Helenius Chisora again, the judge that gave it to Chisora would presumably be considered as being in the wrong, as the other two gave it the other way?

You could have an accessors panel that replay the fight and judge the judges based on that. But yes who makes up that panel.
It probably works for sports where there is one governing body but with all the organisations, associations, federations, councils, unions in Boxing I concede that would be nigh on impossible... which brings us right round to another major issue in boxing... WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, IBO, WBF, WBU etc.

grrrrrrr!

I think its overcomplicating matters to be honest. This system as it is now isnt perfect but for a very subjective sport like boxing its pretty adequate. In close fights its going to come down to interpretation of close rounds which I dont think aggregating will really matter. Fights that could go either way, will still just go either way based on fine margins. this will happen whether you aggregate scores or leave then seperate.

The problem seems to be with inherantly bad scoring, which I think is a judging issue rather than a scoring system issue.

Im convinced had the current system been applied correctly and fairly that Chisora would have been declared the rightful winner. So in that sense I think the system is fine (if not always perfect). It seems that changes proposed to the system are being done so on the basis of bad judging rather than a bad scoring system.

Galveston
I agree corruption is worse, however, I was trying to alleviate the difference between a clear 10-9 round and an "edged" perhaps controversial 10-9 round.

skimpton wrote:Galveston
I agree corruption is worse, however, I was trying to alleviate the difference between a clear 10-9 round and an "edged" perhaps controversial 10-9 round.

Yes but I would argue tat a clear round should be recorded as such by a competetant judge while a close one is open to interpretation in any event. I dont really have any issue with a close round being given as 10-9 by one judge and 9-10 by the two other judges. Thats just the subjective element of the sport kicking in.

Your system seems to be leaning towards scoring close rounds as draws and only counting clear rounds. I would say there isnt really anything wrong with judges being split on a close round.