Terrible / controversial judging calls, and our perspectives of them

Afternoon, gentlemen.

Quick and to the point, as I desperately need some debate to help get me through this final, terrible day before a long weekend of bliss. Let's talk some of boxing's most horrific judging decicions and the different angles you can consider them from.

What was the very worst one you've seen? Which ones did you think were bad'uns, but which seldom get described as such? Which ones do you regularly see trashed as great injustices despite you thinking that such claims are over-blown? If you could pick out one particular awful judging call and correct it by going backwards in time, which one would you pick, and why?

Naturally, I've got a fair few in my head, but it'd be good to see which ones you guys offer up, and from which of the above angles you decide to view them from; a travesty, an overblown storm in a tea cup, a simple shocker or one which you'd like to put right more than any other.

Let's have it, then. Cheers.

The first time I was ever really old enough to feel an injustice of a poor decision was Lewis-Holyfield 1. Pure disbelief at the time but I admit to having never seen it again.

The one I have never seen the fuss over is Calzaghe Reid, remember watching it at the time and thinking it was a close fight but Joe did enough. Have seen it a couple of times since and have done little to revise that opinion.

Has perhaps clamed down a bit recently but when the Calzaghe debates were at their zenith on the Beeb I frequently saw this portrayed as highway robbery, a view I have never been able to subscribe to.

Off the top of my head if I could reverse one it would probably be Reid vs Ottke, am sure there have been worst decision in the history of the sport but have rarely seen a refereeing performance so clearly operating to a certain agenda or so clearly designed to ensure a certain result came to pass.

Helenius vs Chisora - nowehere near the robbery people claim (I thought Helenius edged it)

Well, before you bring it up there's a couple from Whittaker's legacy which were pretty shocking. I would change them, he seems to be somewhat a forgotten man sadly, which is horrible considering he had just about the same kind of talent that Floyd has.

Rios vs Abril stands out as the worst call I've watched live, think I scored 2 close rounds to Rios and everything else to Abril, I've not watched it since though.

Rowley wrote:The one I have never seen the fuss over is Calzaghe Reid, remember watching it at the time and thinking it was a close fight but Joe did enough. Have seen it a couple of times since and have done little to revise that opinion.

Has perhaps clamed down a bit recently but when the Calzaghe debates were at their zenith on the Beeb I frequently saw this portrayed as highway robbery, a view I have never been able to subscribe to.

Off the top of my head if I could reverse one it would probably be Reid vs Ottke, am sure there have been worst decision in the history of the sport but have rarely seen a refereeing performance so clearly operating to a certain agenda or so clearly designed to ensure a certain result came to pass.

Reid even said that he didnt do enough to beat him at the time - it was only later when reid was past it and he needed a few bucks that he changed his story.

bellchees wrote:Rios vs Abril stands out as the worst call I've watched live, think I scored 2 close rounds to Rios and everything else to Abril, I've not watched it since though.

Worst one I've ever seen live, I didn't even give Rios a round, and turned it off before the decision was announced, then I turned on the next day and found out Rios got the win. Couldn't quite understand it, thought I was reading things wrong.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Well, before you bring it up there's a couple from Whittaker's legacy which were pretty shocking. I would change them, he seems to be somewhat a forgotten man sadly, which is horrible considering he had just about the same kind of talent that Floyd has.

Agreed - Whittaker vs Ramirez I sort of falls into both categories. Pernell clearly won, but it sometimes gets over-egged as 'the worst robbery of all time', which I think is slightly OTT.

I'd rip Eubank's WBO title from him in either of the fights with Amaral and Schommer, both of which he lost clearly. Might have woken Chris from his lethargy and 'just enough' mentality. Having to think like a challenger might have seen him reproduce his best again, and take a few risks.

I wouldnt exactly call it a robbery but form me Chris Euabank vs Michael Watson 1, I think Watson did more than enough to get the decision and was shocked the first time as to how Eubank got the decision.

This is going to sound like ive got an agenda against the Eubanks when of course i havent im a fan of them both, but i think Terry Carruthers did enough to get the nod against Eubanks junior afew months ago, i know im in the minority on this one but i feel he outworked Eubank jr for most of that fight.

True enough on Calzaghe-Reid, Jeff. Only ever saw it once, and that was a while back, but like you I saw it as one of those fights where one guys (Calzaghe in this case) wins it very closely but, at the same time, somehow clearly as well. Too many people finding themselves a little too eager to appear clever and stick the boot in to Joe on that one, methinks.

As for Chisora-Helenius, Adam, well I can see where you're coming from insofar as it wasn't a blatant example of larceny like Abril-Rios was, but at the same time I do feel that Chisora, much as I dislike him, was very unlucky there. I had him about three points up though there were some rounds which were scrappy and tough to score.

Macklin v Sturm still gets called a 'robbery'. It got called one only yesterday.

Close fight. Yes.

Robbery. No.

Reid v Ottke was disgusting. That Tillerman chap even warned Reid for punching his opponent in the face.

I saw some poor African lad get utterly ripped off in a Commonwealth title fight the other year. It was one of Warren's shows on Sky and one of his prospects who I can't remember. Appalling decision.

Bit vague that....

Cast a Shadow wrote:Agreed - Whittaker vs Ramirez I sort of falls into both categories. Pernell clearly won, but it sometimes gets over-egged as 'the worst robbery of all time', which I think is slightly OTT.

See, I still think that, in terms of the ones I've actually seen, this was the single most disgraceful decision I've ever seen handed out in a world title fight. I once watched that fight with the mentality of a Ramirez fanatic, looking to give him rounds for as little as possible, just to see if I could somehow fathom how two of the judges managed to have him ahead - and still, I ended up with a card 117-111 in Whitaker's favour. Watching it from an impartial point of view, I think 119-109 would have been fair enough.

When it comes to Pea, I tend to get more riled with the Chavez decision; the blatant fix against Ramirez was bad, but Whitaker did at least get the chance to put it right the next year and he duly dominated Ramirez even more than he had done first time out. However, while Chavez probably huffed and puffed enough to bag a round or two more than Ramirez managed, the scale and importance of the fight blows the Ramirez affair out of the water. Whitaker-Chavez was the Mayweather-Pacquiao of its day and Whitaker would (and should) have added to his legacy massively if the judges hadn't robbed him of that distinction of being the first man to defeat the great Julio.

Moreover, King knew that Chavez had got away with murder and point-blank refused to even entertain the idea of a rematch, despite Whitaker and Duva wanting it (I say King, as I believe that a champion as great as Chavez wouldn't run from anyone).

Pacquiao v Bradley is the definition of robbery.

88Chris05 wrote:I think 109-109 would have been fair enough.

Close fight then.

KingMonkey wrote:I saw some poor African lad get utterly ripped off in a Commonwealth title fight the other year. It was one of Warren's shows on Sky and one of his prospects who I can't remember. Appalling decision.

Bit vague that....

Cox? He low blowed him several times as well. Poor officiating and judging.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I think 109-109 would have been fair enough.

Close fight then.

Funny bugger.

KingMonkey wrote:I saw some poor African lad get utterly ripped off in a Commonwealth title fight the other year. It was one of Warren's shows on Sky and one of his prospects who I can't remember. Appalling decision.

Bit vague that....

There have been a few of these in the last five years or so involving domestic prospects, and they never seem to produce the same kind of outrage as overseas instances of 'home cooking'.

Having the fight on territory with which you're familiar is advantage enough IMO. Do the judges in these fights get swayed by the crowd, or is there a deliberate bias towards one fighter over the other?

Would be interesting to get 'the confessions of a boxing judge' on that subject...

88Chris05 wrote:

Cast a Shadow wrote:Agreed - Whittaker vs Ramirez I sort of falls into both categories. Pernell clearly won, but it sometimes gets over-egged as 'the worst robbery of all time', which I think is slightly OTT.

See, I still think that, in terms of the ones I've actually seen, this was the single most disgraceful decision I've ever seen handed out in a world title fight. I once watched that fight with the mentality of a Ramirez fanatic, looking to give him rounds for as little as possible, just to see if I could somehow fathom how two of the judges managed to have him ahead - and still, I ended up with a card 117-111 in Whitaker's favour. Watching it from an impartial point of view, I think 119-109 would have been fair enough.

When it comes to Pea, I tend to get more riled with the Chavez decision; the blatant fix against Ramirez was bad, but Whitaker did at least get the chance to put it right the next year and he duly dominated Ramirez even more than he had done first time out. However, while Chavez probably huffed and puffed enough to bag a round or two more than Ramirez managed, the scale and importance of the fight blows the Ramirez affair out of the water. Whitaker-Chavez was the Mayweather-Pacquiao of its day and Whitaker would (and should) have added to his legacy massively if the judges hadn't robbed him of that distinction of being the first man to defeat the great Julio.

Moreover, King knew that Chavez had got away with murder and point-blank refused to even entertain the idea of a rematch, despite Whitaker and Duva wanting it (I say King, as I believe that a champion as great as Chavez wouldn't run from anyone).

I agree with the CHavez Whittaker fight, I had Chavez taking two rounds from Pernell from memory, but everything else was Pernell just sliding backwards countering Chavez to death and making a great comeforward fighter look one dimensional and totally hopeless.

Remeber seeing Jimmy Vincent fighting on a Warren card against the at the time touted David Barnes. Vincent was beating him so bad that after 8 or nine rounds Barnes' corner were giving serious consideration to pulling him out only for Barnes to get the nod, one of the worst I can recall seeing that one.

The thing is, Alex, Whitaker didn't just box Chavez and look to counter as many would have expected him to. In the second half of the fight (particularly rounds seven, eight and eleven), he was actually giving Chavez a real beating in the proper sense, jolting him all over the shop with that sneaky left hand lead and, incredibly, even pushing Chavez around the ring, forcing him to the ropes and dominating the inside exchanges. Everyone knows he outboxed Julio, but it tends to be forgotten that he really outfought him as well.

As Whitaker said, it was a "projects beating."

The more I see that fight, and the more I read about it, the more convinced I am that the judges were under instructions from dark forces, to be honest. Whitaker gave Chavez and King every single advantage for that fight, really; they went to Julio's backyard away from Mexico, agreed to fight on a King and Primetime promotion (obviously, HBO were Pea's normal pay masters), allowed team Chavez to pick the judges (Jerry Roth, for instance, turned away basically because he had Meldrick way ahead of Julio before THAT stoppage) and, as Al Bernstein said, with the hostile, pro_Chavez crowd it wasn't a case of whether there'd be some larceny if Whitaker started dominating, but more just a case of how obvious and blatant it would be.

A couple of minutes after the final bell you can clearly see Whitaker on the brink of tears in his corner telling his team "I know they've robbed me" and, a minute or two after that, seeming to shrug his shoulders and say "It's ok, the fans and public can decide." And then, of course, there's the issue of Micky (clown) Vann apparently deducting a point from Whitaker in the sixth despite the referee never instructing the judges to do so (Vann is reported to have told writers afterwards that he'd taken a point from Whitaker on his card which, if he hadn't have done, would have given Pernell the split decision victory, though he immediately retracted this story as the outcry started to gather pace).

Anyway, Whitaker was the first man to beat the legendary Chavez, regardless of what those cards said.

Rios vs Abril - Absolute stinker of a decision

Huck vs Lebedev

Marquez vs Pacquiao III

Bradley vs Pacquaio

Boxing is a sport which could be retrospectively scored. In cases where it is a blatant and disgusting robbery then this should be done.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:I saw some poor African lad get utterly ripped off in a Commonwealth title fight the other year. It was one of Warren's shows on Sky and one of his prospects who I can't remember. Appalling decision.

Bit vague that....

Cox? He low blowed him several times as well. Poor officiating and judging.

Yep, pretty sure it was Cox. It was little to do with poor officiating or judging, they knew what they were doing, it was pure corruption.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Boxing is a sport which could be retrospectively scored. In cases where it is a blatant and disgusting robbery then this should be done.

Sanctioning bodies and promoters are a big part of the problem.

This form of corruption within the sport stems from it not being like other individual sports like darts/tennis/snooker where there's a natural progression towards the best fighting each other in tournament formats, repeat to fade at various locations around the globe.

Unlike those sports, there will always be a subjective element also, which will never go away. BUT if 'protected' fighters and their people did not have the luxury of choosing the venue, officials etc, backed up by a greedy sanctioning body, then there would be a lot less of the 'ropey' scoring we're talking about.

What's needed is a lever that forces the best to travel on occasion, takes account of previous fights and says, "look, you've had your last three fights at home and two of them ended in controversial decisions - for this one YOU need to travel to HIS backyard".

Whether a sanctioning body would have the integrity/balls to do this is another issue.

88Chris05 wrote:The thing is, Alex, Whitaker didn't just box Chavez and look to counter as many would have expected him to. In the second half of the fight (particularly rounds seven, eight and eleven), he was actually giving Chavez a real beating in the proper sense, jolting him all over the shop with that sneaky left hand lead and, incredibly, even pushing Chavez around the ring, forcing him to the ropes and dominating the inside exchanges. Everyone knows he outboxed Julio, but it tends to be forgotten that he really outfought him as well.

As Whitaker said, it was a "projects beating."

The more I see that fight, and the more I read about it, the more convinced I am that the judges were under instructions from dark forces, to be honest. Whitaker gave Chavez and King every single advantage for that fight, really; they went to Julio's backyard away from Mexico, agreed to fight on a King and Primetime promotion (obviously, HBO were Pea's normal pay masters), allowed team Chavez to pick the judges (Jerry Roth, for instance, turned away basically because he had Meldrick way ahead of Julio before THAT stoppage) and, as Al Bernstein said, with the hostile, pro_Chavez crowd it wasn't a case of whether there'd be some larceny if Whitaker started dominating, but more just a case of how obvious and blatant it would be.

A couple of minutes after the final bell you can clearly see Whitaker on the brink of tears in his corner telling his team "I know they've robbed me" and, a minute or two after that, seeming to shrug his shoulders and say "It's ok, the fans and public can decide." And then, of course, there's the issue of Micky (clown) Vann apparently deducting a point from Whitaker in the sixth despite the referee never instructing the judges to do so (Vann is reported to have told writers afterwards that he'd taken a point from Whitaker on his card which, if he hadn't have done, would have given Pernell the split decision victory, though he immediately retracted this story as the outcry started to gather pace).

Anyway, Whitaker was the first man to beat the legendary Chavez, regardless of what those cards said.

Good points, been a fair while since I watched the fight so can't really rememebr it in full details, didn't know that Jerry Roth was turned away because he wasn't to be corrupted, mind you.

One that makes me laugh is Lopez vs Salito 2.

Salito was giving Lopez an absolute hiding throughout the whole fight and eventually knocked him out, only for us to hear that 2 judges had Lopez winning while the other had it even at the time.

Thank the Laaaooord Salito finished that fight in style because I think I would have actually stabbed my eyeballs out of my head if Lopez had of been gifted that fight. Especially due to the one sided-ness of the fight.

If we're going down that route, then I think one judge had Arguello winning every round against Pryor, which is pretty shocking.

Mike Tyson was ahead in Tokyo

Surprised Lara vs Williams hasn't been mentioned.

Pretty clear robbery of a shot Paul Williams that led to an urban myth that Lara was the next Jesus.

In fairness Reborn, despite the over the top trumpeting of Lara as a result of it all, the decision was awful, much like Malik Scott's 'draw' against Glazkov last month.

Rowley, I'm still yet to see Barnes-Vincent although I've tried to find it once or twice, but every comment I've seen regarding the decision is basically in line with yours.

Speaking of hostile crowds influencing judges and officials, anyone else remember Gorres-Darchinyan a few years back? An absolutely disgraceful episode from any angle and the pro-Gorres crowd clearly resulted in the judges and referee losing their bottle.

Worst I've ever seen was Jones Jr being ripped off in the Seoul Olympics.........

People should have gone to jail for that. Even the Korean admitted he'd been given a lesson..............

Lewis-Holy 1 is a decsion I have an issure with...........There were enough rounds close for it to be contentious rather than a robbery..........

Holmes v Spinks 2 was worse for me...............

I thought the same for quite a long time about Lewis-Holyfield I, Truss - that Lewis had been unfortunate but that it wasn't anywhere near the travesty some painted it to be.

However, I saw it again about a year or so back and have to admit that, instead of the margin of about a couple of points I had for Lewis initially, it widened to about four or five; Holyfield just never got in to the fight and looked flat and tired right from the off. Not the worst decision ever by any means, but Lewis did get shafted.

Spinks-Holmes II is a weird one. Larry had it won after ten or eleven rounds but coasted badly near the end (he didn't look particularly tired, more like he was boxing within himself) and Spinks' huffing and puffing narrowed the gap enough to give the judges some problems in scoring it which they shouldn't have had. I do think that Holmes won it, but only by a point, maybe two, in the end.

Only one or two points If you give the close rounds to Spinks........

Which makes it a robbery for me....

Talking about the olympics, last year I seem to remember there was an absolute shocker and it caused that much of a stir that they actually overturned the result. the Azerbaijan boxer was knocked to the floor six times in one round and still had his hand held aloft!

Malignaggi was on course to be shafted royally by Senchenko. I had him winning a near shut out up to the stoppage but he was behind on the cards.

Also what was hilarious about that fight was the TV replays only showed Senchenkos punches and not Malignaggis so after some rounds you would just see Senchenko landing the same jab 4 times as they had nothing else to show from him and not see how Malignaggi was doing a quite a good job busting his eye. Paulie would have been up a creek that night if it weren't for that sledge hammer right hand of his.

bellchees wrote:Malignaggi was on course to be shafted royally by Senchenko. I had him winning a near shut out up to the stoppage but he was behind on the cards.

Also what was hilarious about that fight was the TV replays only showed Senchenkos punches and not Malignaggis so after some rounds you would just see Senchenko landing the same jab 4 times as they had nothing else to show from him and not see how Malignaggi was doing a quite a good job busting his eye. Paulie would have been up a creek that night if it weren't for that sledge hammer right hand of his.

fairly similar to the highlights reel of manny v marquez III

spencerclarke wrote:Talking about the olympics, last year I seem to remember there was an absolute shocker and it caused that much of a stir that they actually overturned the result. the Azerbaijan boxer was knocked to the floor six times in one round and still had his hand held aloft!

I have never been so angry watching a fight as I was then. The last round he had nothing left and just held at the waist until the Ref had to physically pull him away from the other boxer as he wouldn't let go when break was called.

Didn't he have to be helped out of the ring as well? Legs completely gone.

Your very own Michael Brodie was screwed out of a title a few years back.....Mexican fighter with the Mexican WBC...........

i thought sturm and macklin was a close fight, and not the robbery it was portrayed as.

i still believe valuev beat haye, but since valuev didnt fight again, it seems clear to see why he didint get the decision in that one.

i thought pacman had clearly beaten bradley at the time, but was surprised to see how close it was with the commentary off

Molina getting disqualified when he was miles ahead against Kirkland, the bell clearly went to end the round, no idea what the referee was doing really, how the judges at the fight at all close is another mystery. A blatant disgraceful stitch up.

Although in my opinion the correct fighter got the nod, Daniel Geale was robbed by one of the judges when he fought Sevastien Sylvester. Two of the judges scored 118-110 and 118-112 in Geales favour the remaining judge scored 110-118 for Sylvester. Never have I seen cards scored so differently.

Pazienza - Haugen 1
--------------------------

Only the wally off Eurosport who covered the fight 20 years later and knew the result had Pazienza winning....

Huge robbery at the time..............I had it 10-5 and KO had it 9-5-1........

Shocker..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your very own Michael Brodie was screwed out of a title a few years back.....Mexican fighter with the Mexican WBC...........

Yup - Brodie against Willie Jorrin. Ridiculous decision, that one. Poor guy got jobbed in his own country. It was a close-ish fight, but I still had Brodie 2-3 ahead.

mark_england wrote:Pacquiao v Bradley is the definition of robbery.

I don't agree. I gave Pacquiao the fight myself, but I could see a possible argument for Bradley once the round by round scoring was done. A robbery for me is when you go through the fight round by round and there's just not enough close/debatable ones to give to the winner of the 'robbery'.

My personal sickener a from a bygone age:
Minter jobbed against hamsho
Fidel smith, our very own glen Johnson, utterly jobbed in a homeowner against poster boy henry wharton.

Fights not the robberies they are said to be:
I differ with Chris and others on Alexander matthysse! Sturm macklin and Reid ottke. All were all fights where one won their rounds big, but if you score the close ones the other way it's close on the cards.

As has been said, Reid ottke was a stitch up from the ref, not the judges. Warning Reid for punching his opponent! Unbelievable.

The irritating thing about the Macklin-Sturm result was the gap on the cards in Sturm's favour. A point or two either way you can handle but I think one card had Sturm up by six rounds which was utter nonsense.

I think a couple of them had him up by about 4, km, which Is still unacceptable...like you say, a point either way doesn't look like a stitch up. I think the Germans themselves thought macklin was jobbed, which considering they were quite happy with ottke shafting people for years I found strange. I can only think that felix wasn't too popular in Germany.. I thought there was a reaction with the Murray fight, which I thought sturm won with a few rounds to spare.