Dodgy decisions. Worse now than ever?

Boxing is as clean now a days as it as ever been. That may not put the sport in a great light, but it does show you how bad it used to be.

If a Mafia has influence in today's game, it is in an understated, behind the scenes way, that was not always the case. In the 1950's for instance, an openly criminal group (the IBC) promoted many of the top fighters.

Even in Britain the Duff, Astaire et al cartel ran boxing until the 1980s.

 

Not really, dodgy stuff been happening since bare knuckle era!

Big difference is that people's reactions are visible immediately thanks to multi media.

 

things happening now that not even the mafia would have chanced their arm to get away with.
all the world title belts....wba with 3 world title belts....prizefighter tournaments....
in the old days if public opinion demanded a descision was wrong it would be overturned, look through henry armstrongs record, then look at marquez v pacquaio 3
boxing is more corrupt now than it ever was...the people that run the sport openly flaunt all this stuff
look at all the recent stories from the warr-en stable recently, lads owed fortunes and not getting it
its bad right now

 

Helen keller

 

I have been seeing more and more bad decisions by criminal judges lately and I guess it will get even worse.................time for an investigation..............

 

agree with this...

It has been bad and its a shame. it is making me think twice about if i still want to compete myself.

 

What am I looking for in Armstrongs record Doug? Also I don't thing there were that many decisions overturned, most times dodgy decisions just forced at rematch at best.

 

I've not been watching boxing for long enough to really say, but the last couple of years has seen some blatant rip off jobs, where the ''winner'' has been clear to practically everyone, yet they don't get the decision.

I'm talking about fights like Abril/Rios, Sai/Cox and Pac/Bradley.

If fights are quite close and they go on a split decision like Bellew/Cleverly then alright, fair enough I suppose.... but when you know by about round 8-9 that one fighter needs a knockout to win, doesn't get it and wins anyway it's frustrating.

 

It makes no difference at all if a close fight goes to a split decision BB, none of the cards should have any influence over any of the other cards. Its abut the scores on the individual cards.

 

Yeah I know, but what I mean is that the fight was (in theory) close enough for the judges to disagree with the outcome.

Of course two judges scoring a fight 115-113 either way and then another weighing in with a 119-109 card kinda pisses all over that theory and makes you wonder.

 

Yeah a very close fight getting scored a UD 115-114, 115-114, 115-113 is usually "better" than a fairer split decision result where a judge has thrown in a 115-111 to the wrong guy.

 

I remember when the late great ring announcer Chuck Hall came out & publicy stated that judges at these fights accept gifts/hospitality for family members from casino bosses & have judged fights when totally drunk. It goes without saying that Chuck never got another job in Vegas again. Here's Chuck in action at 4.48 & 7.08.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7bwihoLug4[/ame]

 

i'm at work here mate so can't go into it too much..but...one example..

"The 10-round bout between Henry Armstrong, 130, Los Angeles and Kid Moro, 130, Philippines, ended in a draw at Pismo Beach last night after a state commissioner present reversed a referee's decision in favor of Armstrong. The referee, Freddie Gilmore, was given police protection as protests of fans ended in a near riot." (Reno Gazette)