How final is the judges decision when you evaluate fighters?

Due to the subjective nature of scoring in boxing you often get wide variation in scoring and differences in opinion on who won fights that are often very close and open to interpretation. However the judges that have the final say and consigns the verdict to the history book. But how much does this effect your evaluation of the fighters career or legacy? Especially when they are retired and you are reflecting on their career as a whole? Do you mentally change results you dont agree with as part of your evaluation? Or do you think one should just have to accept the general rule that the official verdict is final? Often in discussions you will see people use the "judges decision is final" to defend their argument when it suits them but then use the "the judges got it wrong" argument when it doesnt.

If we take three basic categories of fights as a starting point:

Category 1: Fights that are very close and could go either way. A genuine case could be made for either fighter. Im thinking of fights like Hopkins/Calzaghe, Hagler/Leonard or even the recent Macklin/Sturm. Obviously in each case there was an official winner. And if you agreed with that you are happy enough. But what if you had the other guy winning? How much does this effect your view of the fighters career? Would you be inclined to feel Calzaghe was not actually unbeaten if you had Hopkins winning for example? Would you accept an argment from someone who claimed Hagler had beaten Leonard in their view so they dont count that as a win for Leonard when evaluating his career or rating him as a fighter?

Category 2: Fights that were close, but the general concensus was that while there was no robbery, the wrong guy probably got the decision. Im thinking of fights like Mayweather/Castillo or Leonard/Hearns II where although one could probably unerstand the result the majority of people seemed to disagree slightly with the judges. Again asking the same kind of questions, how much does this effect your perception. For example. If, as with another thread yesterday we compared Mayweathers legacy to Whitaker would the argument that Mayweathers "0" was an illusion hold any water with you?

Category 3: Outright robberies. Decisions that almost cannot be defended. Think of the recent Williams/Lara bout or the Whitaker/Ramirez fight. In these cases much more than the other two categories its easier to change the result in your head. But should that be the case? If for arguments sake you think that the judges decision is final should hold true for this category? Or should you just be entitled to throw it out completely? What kind of blemish does it leave on the fighters record when you consider them?

Theres probably a fourth category which are decisions that seem inherantly wrong but could in some shape or form be at least explainable. But its such a subjective category I will leave it alone.

Personally I tend to follow the line that the judges decision is final in the first two categories and even if I disagree with the decision I tend to say thats just boxing and evaluate the fighter in accordance to the official result. Partly because I think one has to recognise that boxing is subjective and sometimes you just have to acept that the judges didnt agree with you in their interpretation. But also partly because I think to do otherwise is extremelly messy and leads to a big danger of rewriting history according to very narrow margins. Whilst I have no problem with somebody arguing they thought the decision should have gone the other way, I dont really like argument that their personal decision should overrule the official one. I think you need to show outright robbery for that. For instance somebody insisting Calzaghe wasnt unbeaten is not really a position I would accept. Whether you thought he beat Hopkins (or even Reid) or not I think the official decisions should be final.

Interesting and thought provoking post Manos, as usual.

I think you really have to take the 'official' result, otherwise it creates all sorts of difficulties.

Taking your example of Calzaghe / Hopkins, if your view is that Hopkins won the fight, do you then ignore Calzaghe's win over Jones Jr (not that he gets much credit for that anyway), as if he had lost to Hopkins he would have either re-matched or retired?

Or does he get extra credit for losing to Hopkins then coming back and beating Jones Jr?

I think I tend to go with the judges decision, I will obviously make some allowances where a blatant robbery has took place in assessing someones greatness, but there are two things I always come back to on this debate. Firstly is the number of actual robberies in boxing is far less frequent than many would have you believe, will take the Calzaghe example you have used, have spoken to people I respect who had him losing to both or either of Reid or Hopkins but whilst I disagree with this, strongly in the case of Reid would struggle to see how anyone could describe these as robberies in the true sense, they were at worst close fights he got lucky in.

The other point to bear in mind is fighters who in years to come we will discuss as greats tend to be in those discussions because they fight a number of decent fighters over their career and so whilst it is not always the case they tend to have a few such decisions in their career. I always think of DLH in this respect a lot of people will put forward the Mosley or Trinidad fights where he got the short end but for me this is balanced out by Sturm, Whittaker and to an extent Quartey, given all this I am loath to ignore official results except in absolutely exceptional circumstances which I genuinely believe are few and far between.

I never have a problem with categories 1 or 2, since I simply ask the question " Should the fight have been close in the first place?" when evaluating the two fighters' overall legacies. In other words, regardless of whom I believe should have got the nod between, let's say, Hagler and Leonard, I'd ask myself whether or not Hagler loses brownie points for the fight having been so close ( since he was favourite, ) and whether or not Leonard deserves extra brownie points, given that many feel he manipulated the circumstances to his favour.

Where there is an outright robbery I don't have any problem rewriting the history books for purely analytical purposes.

Sven Ottke never technically won a major fight in my books. Fortunately, the HoF and The Ring Magazine agree with that concencous and despite all of his hard work in German winning decisions, will NEVER be recognised as a true champion anywhere in the World.

What defines a boxer (in my opinion and for what it's worth) is his performance:

Look at Chisora after Helenus? Klitschko said himself that the fight was a robbery and that's why he was chosen to fight... regardless of the W/L, the performance is what stood out.

Marquez vs Pacquaio 3? In my eyes, Marquez won the fight... in the eyes of a lot of people Marquez won the fight. He knows it and Manny, Arum and Roach all know it deep down. Therfore Marquez's "loss" in my books is written off.

It's a shame that the boxer with the better financial backing always seems to come away with the win from a close fight. But it doesn't change my perception of who really won.

I also think that a lot of promoters and boxers feel the same way, Martinez still had a shot at Pavlik following the robbery in the Cintron fight and a close decision in the Williams fight!

rowley wrote:I think I tend to go with the judges decision, I will obviously make some allowances where a blatant robbery has took place in assessing someones greatness, but there are two things I always come back to on this debate. Firstly is the number of actual robberies in boxing is far less frequent than many would have you believe, will take the Calzaghe example you have used, have spoken to people I respect who had him losing to both or either of Reid or Hopkins but whilst I disagree with this, strongly in the case of Reid would struggle to see how anyone could describe these as robberies in the true sense, they were at worst close fights he got lucky in.

The other point to bear in mind is fighters who in years to come we will discuss as greats tend to be in those discussions because they fight a number of decent fighters over their career and so whilst it is not always the case they tend to have a few such decisions in their career. I always think of DLH in this respect a lot of people will put forward the Mosley or Trinidad fights where he got the short end but for me this is balanced out by Sturm, Whittaker and to an extent Quartey, given all this I am loath to ignore official results except in absolutely exceptional circumstances which I genuinely believe are few and far between.

Same here although I will make allowances for any fights that I score 3-4 the other way. Always comes back to opponent though I leave upsets where style conquers/nearly conquers the superior fighter just as the judge scores it to save myself a headache.

HumanWindmill wrote:I never have a problem with categories 1 or 2, since I simply ask the question " Should the fight have been close in the first place?" when evaluating the two fighters' overall legacies. In other words, regardless of whom I believe should have got the nod between, let's say, Hagler and Leonard, I'd ask myself whether or not Hagler loses brownie points for the fight having been so close ( since he was favourite, ) and whether or not Leonard deserves extra brownie points, given that many feel he manipulated the circumstances to his favour.

Where there is an outright robbery I don't have any problem rewriting the history books for purely analytical purposes.

I see where your coming from. But if for arguments sake you were discussing where you rank Ray Leonard overall and someone else said they didnt have him in their top 20 because they thought he lost Hearns II and the Hagler fight. Would you accept this as a valid argument?

I wouldn't agree with the opinion that the perceived 'loss' to Hagler should devalue Leonard's standing, since it could be argued that he was the underdog and that the fight had been extremely close.

I'd give some credence to the Hearns argument, though, and for the same reasons in reverse.

HumanWindmill wrote:I wouldn't agree with the opinion that the perceived 'loss' to Hagler should devalue Leonard's standing, since it could be argued that he was the underdog and that the fight had been extremely close.

I'd give some credence to the Hearns argument, though, and for the same reasons in reverse.

I think its an ineteresting point about the perception of the fighters chances or tag as underdog/favourite. It often has a big impact either conciously or subconciously on how wins are viewed.

Calzaghes win ove Lacy for instance is often seen as a top win not just for the performance but for the fact it was seen as a pick'em at the time. With hindsight, the performance remains quality but was probably more a case of a great fighter beating a decent one.

I remember recently enough looking Hopkins fights and seeing that in the majority of his big fights he has been the underdog. In many cases the underdog tag was justified but some fights like against Pavlik it would seem to have been misguided on reflection.

See it like Windy, downright robberies I see for the man who should have got the nod, in assessing Ramirez I would never use his 'win' over Whitaker as example of his level as he simply did not win regardless of the judges decision.

Closes fights that shouldn't have been close are tricky, Hagler should have beaten Leonard quite comfortably so whether you think he won and I tend to think he deserved the nod, it doesn't add a huge amount to his legacy so look upon it as a loss.

The trickiest situation for me is Marquez and Pacquiao, two close fights and one downright robbery but think it will be viewed as Marquez being robbed all three times when he wasn't.

Funny that you should say that about Hopkins.

I've always appreciated his boxing, negative or not. The guy is a genuine craftsman. Like you, however, I've sometimes had the sneaking feeling that he's benefitted from sneaking into a fight through the back door as underdog ( and therefore with reduced pressure on him, ) when, in reality, he shouldn't have been.

HumanWindmill wrote:Funny that you should say that about Hopkins.

I've always appreciated his boxing, negative or not. The guy is a genuine craftsman. Like you, however, I've sometimes had the sneaking feeling that he's benefitted from sneaking into a fight through the back door as underdog ( and therefore with reduced pressure on him, ) when, in reality, he shouldn't have been.

Yeah I think his age plays a part aswell. People just keep expecting him to get old in the ring. Even after his draw with Pascal where it was reasonably clear who the better fighter was he still started the rematch as a small underdog again. Hes over 47 now so more or less every time he fights its almost a case of little to lose and alot to gain. Its probably been like that since his Tarver fight as I think most people considered his two fights with Taylor as the beginning of the end which hasnt really been the case at all.

He wasn't a big favourite over Eastman either if my memory serves me right.