Helenius, Chisora and the referee's comments

First topic message reminder :

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?

manos yes i agree it does lean toward close rounds as draws.
If 2 or 3 "professional" judges cannot agree why should it not be a draw?
Surely a drawn round is fairer than taking a controversial opinion either way.
Winning six round clearly is surely better than "nicking" 6 rounds but is not rewarded as such.

skimpton wrote:manos yes i agree it does lean toward close rounds as draws.
If 2 or 3 "professional" judges cannot agree why should it not be a draw?
Surely a drawn round is fairer than taking a controversial opinion either way.
Winning six round clearly is surely better than "nicking" 6 rounds but is not rewarded as such.

My take would just be because thats the nature of boxing. Its very subjective to score so theres a certain innevitability that close rounds will split opinion. Quite often there will be no right or wrong, but simply a judges interpretation of a round. I dont really have a problem with this because each person will value different qualities in a round. Just because 3 judges are unanimous on a close round would not neccessarily make it a clear round. If 2/3 judges agree on a round the why should the majority not rule?

I understand the potential for a fighter to lose 6 rounds clearly and nick 6 rounds by a fine margin and scrape a draw that on the surface doesnt appear warranted. But I think this is just the nature of round by round scoring. It would also require all the judges to be unanimous on the close rounds in any case.

Union Cane wrote:

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 agree, but there is aways the risk they would get one that scores the fight like you

Fight until a fighter quits or is knocked out, points would become irrelevant, extremely unlikely to revert back to the old ways but controversy would be minimal and you could only blame the referee for stopping it early.

Seanusarrilius wrote:I agree, but there is aways the risk they would get one that scores the fight like you

I suppose so.

I had it 115-113 to Chisora by the way.

plenty of controversy in the old days two-tone....

While I dont pretend to know a great deal about olden day boxing I would think were the rules to change to either the boxer quits or is knocked out it would mean the fight is in the fighters hands alone, apart from the refereee or corner stopping things early. Would never happen with all health and safety regulations in place but we would have less to question with the removal of a points system.

Things called... no-contests... and another thing called the Mob......

Somethings have changed for the better...others haven't.....

ive always said split decision should be classed as draws. if 3 so called experts cant even agree who won a fight then how can a guy lose his title on such a decision. the hopkins calzaghe always got me, 2-3 judges thought calzaghe won so history will record him as the victor, but 3/4s of the public thought bernard won.

So if Taylor-Chavez had gone to a decision it should have been a draw????

Donaire's last fight would be a draw too, along with Mayweather v De La Hoya.

I dont really think there is a perfect system or overall solution. They have experimented with various systems such as the last man standing, no decision, round by round and ten point systm.

Would people really want to see contests fought until one fighter basically gasses? A possible 5 hour spectacle that ends with two exhausted guys completely gassed until one cant go on? Thats not really satisfying to me and just becomes a question of endurance and conditioning, not to mention almost impossible to predict the lengh of a fight.

I think in boxing there will always just be close fights that are capable of going either way depending on ones interpretation. Whether yu score it round by round, introduce more complex/less complex systems or even judge the fight as a whole overall this will most likely always be the case.

manos de piedra wrote:Would people really want to see contests fought until one fighter basically gasses? A possible 5 hour spectacle that ends with two exhausted guys completely gassed until one cant go on?

Great idea.

"Test" match boxing.

Would require immense amounts of skill and thought. Some would try to start fast and blow people suited to 60+ round contests away early, whilst the other man spoiled and tried to bide his time.

Of course - incredibly dangerous and would lead to all manner of horrible neurological sequelae - some worse than Dementia pugilistica.