Do People's Expectations & False Perceptions Of Reality, Affect Their Judgement While Scoring?

tinman · Jun 17, 2022

You're also a pro Gvozdyk guy and anti Beterbiev guy. So you are inherently biased. You're also a human being and thus influenced by personal bias. Therefore, your card is unlikley to be 100% objective. And neither is mine because I'm biased as well. And interestingly enough bias is a huge part of the thesis of your thread. You talk about the perception that a certain fighter is skilled and another is not. That was definitely the perception going into the fight. So people ended up awarding Gvozdyk rounds simply because "he is the boxer". Even though he was being outboxed. The preconceived notion was Gvozdyk was the boxer.

shadow111 · Jun 17, 2022

tinman said: ↑

Scoring is inherently subjective so you can't prove that anybody won a round.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I can support my score of a round with relevant clips and video evidence, bringing to your attention key moments of the round that most fans seem to be oblivious to. What I set out to prove is not that a round has to be score the way I scored it, but rather exposing the idea that it can only be scored one way, even in objectively close rounds. The main problem here is those who push narratives that make it seem like certain rounds are easy to score and cannot be scored any other way. I set out to destroy that, because like you said scoring is subjective and no one has a monopoly on how a round can be scored. Like Markus in the Floyd/Canelo topic claiming that round 3 and 6 are clear Mayweather rounds. I started pumping the brakes on that because that's the main issue here. People thinking they know better than everyone else where in many cases they're completely clueless and that needs to be called out.

tinman · Jun 17, 2022

shadow111 said: ↑

That's true, but I can support my score of a round with relevant clips and video evidence, bringing to your attention key moments of the round that most fans seem to be oblivious to. What I set out to prove is not that a round has to be score the way I scored it, but rather exposing the idea that it can only be scored one way, even in objectively close rounds. The main problem here is those who push narratives that make it seem like certain rounds are easy to score and cannot be scored any other way. I set out to destroy that, because like you said scoring is subjective and no one has a monopoly on how a round can be scored. Like Markus in the Floyd/Canelo topic claiming that round 3 and 6 are clear Mayweather rounds. I started pumping the brakes on that because that's the main issue here. People thinking they know better than everyone else where in many cases they're completely clueless and needs to be called out.
Click to expand...

In his interpretation they are clear rounds for Mayweather.

shadow111 · Jun 17, 2022

tinman said: ↑

In his interpretation they are clear rounds for Mayweather.
Click to expand...

He has every right to that opinion, and I have every right to counter that opinion and point out why.

rakan · Jun 17, 2022

CST80 said: ↑

Look, this thread in no way is meant to blow smoke up my ass, or up the ass of @IntentionalButt (well, maybe a little). While I personally think most of our scorecards far more closely reflect the reality of what's occurring in the ring, many people have certainly had their disagreements. Maybe their disagreements are valid, maybe they aren't. But often times, fans of both fighters can see a match in a completely different light, and seems to hinder their appraisal of what's actually occurring in the ring to a degree. Now sure, close competitive matches can cause a split, and people will end up seeing what they want to see, especially when it's between two elite fighters, with vociferous fanbases. But that's not really what I'm talking about here.

I've noticed a pattern, myself and a handful of other fans/posters, will have seen a potential unheralded opponent, usually deemed a bum by detractors and an easy win by fans, far more times than the casuals that populate the popular fighter's fanbase. So, while the hardcores are predicting a far tougher fight than most are expecting. When the supposed bum/easy win, starts performing better than expected, I think there's a degree of denial fans go through before it thoroughly clicks that their guy is losing rounds, or maybe the momentary inability to process what's happening accurately. Because usually with most things, especially people with fixed thought patterns, they're slow to make adjustments. That can often negatively affect their judgment, and hamper their ability to process what's happening right before their eyes. Because there's a learning curve they must go through, before they can adjust their expectations and start seeing the reality of what's actually occurring. Well if anything, devout fanboys more often than not, are the definition of inflexible. Usually, and I've seen this on several RBR's, people are slow to adjust, when their fighter starts losing rounds, sometimes right out of the gate. So it takes them three or four to finally give the opponent a round. I'm not entirely sure this expectation game warping of reality, doesn't affect the official judges as well. Like what happened with Canelo vs. Bivol. Did it take them 4 or 5 rounds to have what was actually happening finally click? Perhaps.

Granted, it's not out of the question, the people who do expect a tougher fight, don't end up falling into a slight pattern of confirmation bias ourselves, and end up being extra generous, in rounds the "opponent" is being extra competitive in, but more often than not, it's the A-side that's always being given the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the B-side.

Then there's the false perception of reality bias that comes into effect. I covered this in a thread I did over a half a decade ago, called the phenomenon of the terrible opening round. Two good examples being Pascal vs. Yunieski Gonzalez, where YG came out like a steamroller and beat the living hell out of Pascal, who looked on the verge of a stoppage loss in the first round. That was the epitome of a terrible opening round, so much so, it seemed to cloud the minds of many of the viewers for the remainder of the match. Because they were now under the false impression/perception that Gonzalez was having far more success than he actually was. Gonzalez was swinging like a madman, many of the shots were just missing by a hair while Pascal was ducking under them, and counter with looping overhands out of a crouched position. Now don't get me wrong, it was a close fight, 96-94 ether way or 95-95 were all feasible scores. But by no means was it even close to the robbery it was made out to be.

Same thing happened with the first encounter between Froch and Groves. One couldn't have a worse round than Carl, sans literally getting KTFO. Froch got KTFO, somehow managed to wake up right before he hit the mat, and had already popped back up relatively quickly, and had already recalibrated his iron chin to titanium by the round's end, eating a flush nasty one two. So, that had everyone primed and ready to see The Cobra, knocked spark the **** out. They thought Carl was toast and his goose was cooked. So much so, most didn't realize that the 2nd round, 3rd round and 5th rounds were actually quite competitive and could've gone either way. But, it's hard not to be influenced by Jim Watt's rantings and ravings about the end being nigh. So to many, they were shocked when Froch pulled out the stoppage. Whereas I wasn't, because it was apparent to anyone watching with a clear head, that Froch was starting to inflict more and more damage as the rounds were going by, until the inevitable happened. It's just a pity that the ref waved it as soon as he did. Had he let it continue for another minute or two, the stoppage would've been far more definitive.

Then there's the feared power punchers that every is expecting to win by KO, and early, so they're on a tinderbox, biting on every feint and missed shot, thinking it's chopping down an opponent. Reading into the ultra negative body language of the opponent, who's scared of taking a flush punch from said dangerous power puncher. All the while, that scared opponent who's being backed up and bossed around the ring, he's landing jabs and counters, while slipping the incoming fire. So you get what we got in back to back matches with Berlanga. Steve Rolls was clearly boxing his ears off, while Berlanga was landing next to nothing. Yet their perception of reality was so off, they couldn't judge it properly. Then the same happened again with the Roamer Alexis Angulo fight, which thank God, more people happened to see clearly. Primarily due to Angulo walking Berlanga down, albeit in a safety first conservative manner. While all Berlanga was doing was throwing jabs and one twos into the forearms of the Colombian. None of which are scoring shots, just like with Canelo vs. Bivol again.

Then of course, we have matches like Sor Rungvisai vs. Gonzalez 1, Estrada vs. Gonzalez 2, Horn vs. Pacquiao, Cruz vs. Davis, Richards vs. Buatsi, Taylor vs. Catterall, Korobov vs. Charlo, Derevyanchenko vs. GGG, Jacobs and Charlo etc. Where their perceptions of reality are being shattered left and right, and they lose all ability to process what's happening. In some cases, they're giving the A-side far too much credit for perceived successes, in others, not giving the A-side enough credit, because the B-side is overperforming. But also in denial, and refusing to see what's in front of them, and how the rounds are too close to call, and need to be watched under a microscope. Or a little of all of the above. A good example would be GGG vs Derevyanchenko. People were so shocked to see GGG hurt to the body for a second, they started thinking SD had a chance, and started overstating his successes. Meanwhile, they though Sor Rungvisai dropping Chocolatito was a fluke, and wasn't noticing the devastating counter lefts than Sor Rungvisai was pulverizing Roman with for the next 11 rounds. Short circuiting many viewers to the point where they had to go back and rewatch what happened to see it correctly, and even then, many remained in denial.

Look, I'll admit, I can occasionally fall into the confirmation bias loop, because I expect an opponent I'm well versed in, to do better than everyone else. But that doesn't always mean I'm in the wrong either. Sometimes it takes everyone else a round or two to catch up. Although sometimes, I will edge a round that's action packed and hard to score towards the B-side, usually because I genuinely thought they did enough to edge it. But it could be a subconscious bias coming into play. Although will the rest of you admit to your potential blind spots and foibles? Maybe you will. So, what do you think about these observations of mine? Am I nuts, or onto something? How often do you think stuff like this comes into play and can be factored into people's assessments of controversial fights?
Click to expand...

Well said
Big fan of the scoring card that you post
Keep up the good work

Serge · Jun 17, 2022

Bias can be seen even though it's invisible.

CST scored Bivol vs Clenelo 10-2 to Bivol as did I. However, others scored it much closer. They lied

shadow111 · Jun 17, 2022

Serge said: ↑

Bias can be seen even though it's invisible.

CST scored Bivol vs Clenelo 10-2 to Bivol as did I. However, others scored it much closer. They lied
Click to expand...

10-2 is far more reasonable than 12-0, as some have argued. If Bivol won 7 rounds clearly, and if 5 of the rounds were close and debatable, then giving all the close rounds to Bivol and having it a shutout suggests bias. Splitting the close rounds shows that you're actually scoring rounds and trying to be fair to both fighters. While 10-2 is a little wide for me, it's certainly arguable. 12-0 on the other hand just screams bias. That's not to say that you couldn't argue Bivol won every round. But if you had it 12-0, it would help to understand why you came to that score.

MarkusFlorez99 · Jun 17, 2022

I try to be as subjective as possible. No matter who i root for i look at punches blocked, landed and slipped. Successful combinations, jabs landed and someone getting badly hurt could also swing a razor close round.

An example is the first Charlo/Castano fight. I was rooting for Charlo but it's clear he was outworked and outskilled for at least 7 rounds although he did manage to hurt Castano. Most Charlo fans had it a draw or scored it closely for Charlo but i knew he got a gift decision. It was the hard truth. He won the rematch in conclusive fashion and credit to him but it was Castano who should've been undisputed first

turbotime · Jun 17, 2022

Yes. It's called the Roy Jones affect.

CST80 · Jun 17, 2022

tinman said: ↑

Gvozdyk quit and had enough and then retired. I do not blame him. I would have done the same thing. He's no Arturo Gatt, Matthew Muhammad or Joe Smith Jr. And that's perfectly fine and ok.

As far as the cards on that fight. I had Beterbiev ahead. I've given my reasoning. If you or others disagree then that is fine. I don't agree, but neither you or I are definitively correct. The nature of scoring rounds is inherently subjective.
Click to expand...

Getting dropped three times and the ref waving it off, isn't quitting. Quitting is quitting.

tinman said: ↑

You're also a pro Gvozdyk guy and anti Beterbiev guy. So you are inherently biased. You're also a human being and thus influenced by personal bias. Therefore, your card is unlikley to be 100% objective. And neither is mine because I'm biased as well. And interestingly enough bias is a huge part of the thesis of your thread. You talk about the perception that a certain fighter is skilled and another is not. That was definitely the perception going into the fight. So people ended up awarding Gvozdyk rounds simply because "he is the boxer". Even though he was being outboxed. The preconceived notion was Gvozdyk was the boxer.
Click to expand...

I didn't score the match in Gvozdyk's favor because he was the boxer, it was because he was oulanding him in terms of power punches. My perception had nothing to do with it. Hence why I only had Gvozdyk ahead by a point. I could still see the fight as ridiculously close and competitive, and have no problem with anyone having Beterbiev ahead by a point. However, what you're attempting to do is after the fact, proclaim in a cocksure declaritive manner that Beterbiev made him quit and was definitively outboxing him. When they reality is, he TKO'd him and they were fighting on even terms. What I'm saying isn't undermining the thesis of my thread. But what you're saying is confirming it.

Bobby Tony · Jun 17, 2022

Good thread. I am remembering the outrage after the Pacquiao-Bradley decision. Later one of the judges admitted he was expecting Pacquiao to be the Unstoppable Tasmanian Devil buzzsaw he had been heretofore and awarded Bradley rounds just because Manny looked more human than he was expecting. So dude wasn't scoring the fight happening before his eyes, he was scoring against the preconception he had. Picture perfect example of this thread's theme.

CST80 · Jun 17, 2022

The Professor said: ↑

Exactly. Which is why taking a stand that one's scorecard is absolutely correct, and others' are definitely wrong is utterly, completely and totally untenable -- as are most assertions that a some decision is a "robbery. "
Click to expand...

It depends on the fight. Of course some fights are open to interpretation and assertions that a match is a robbery can be a bit over the top and ridiculous. That being said, you can't apply this relativist take to every match. Sometimes a close match, is close but definitive, and to find 2 extra rounds for the fighter that's gifted the win is simply impossible, and the fact that the official judges always manage to find said rounds that do not exist, is even more untenable. That more often than not, is the root cause of the outrage. Was Richards vs. Buatsi close? Yes. Could either man have won? Yes. Do people who scored it a point in either direction have an argument their scorecard is the correct one? Yes. But the fact that all three official judges all had it for Buatsi, is the primary bone of contention. The A-side ALWAYS gets the benefit of the doubt. As a socialist that roots for the underdog, it does seem like these capitalist pigs always going for the money fighter, should ruffle your feathers... just a little.

CST80 · Jun 17, 2022

shadow111 said: ↑

I'm annoying? I'm not trying to be annoying at all. I'm trying to HELP. And I don't claim to be perfect. If you disagree with me on anything I welcome disagreement and am very willing to own up to anything that I'm wrong about. I am very grateful to have a platform to post clips to show important parts of rounds that are relevant to scoring. I go out of my way to support my views and I try to be thorough so people can't just say I'm pushing narratives. If you think I'm pushing narratives, then call me out on it. This isn't a joke CST, there are a lot of narratives that I'm exposing and again whether you agree or disagree, I'm only trying to help and make people aware of the lies and disinfo.
Click to expand...

Yes.... very. I know you're not, but you lack self awareness and are oblivious to it. No, you're trying to twist everything to the breaking point and fit square pegs in round holes, to push your agenda. You're wrong constantly, and never own up to anything. I'm glad you have it as well, even though I think you're bat**** insane and wrong 90% of the time, but I love free speech. You've fail miserably if that's your two intentions. I would debate you, but the shadow realm vortex can be a maddening one to enter, I avoid arguing with mental patients for the same reason. Sadly, I know this isn't a joke for you. Tin foil hat types do the same thing all of the time as well. You know, like those people who think the earth is flat.

For the record, I do bizarrely like you, even though I think you're bat**** insane, and there is something somewhat admirable about seeing someone swim upstream 24/7 as hard as you do. So that in and of itself, is oddly enough laudable, because I do think you're being genuine. Which might be even more terrifying.

don owens · Jun 17, 2022

Yes. it also has made me spill wine on my shirt on occasion

African Cobra · Jun 17, 2022

CST80 said: ↑

Look, this thread in no way is meant to blow smoke up my ass, or up the ass of @IntentionalButt (well, maybe a little). While I personally think most of our scorecards far more closely reflect the reality of what's occurring in the ring, many people have certainly had their disagreements. Maybe their disagreements are valid, maybe they aren't. But often times, fans of both fighters can see a match in a completely different light, and seems to hinder their appraisal of what's actually occurring in the ring to a degree. Now sure, close competitive matches can cause a split, and people will end up seeing what they want to see, especially when it's between two elite fighters, with vociferous fanbases. But that's not really what I'm talking about here.

I've noticed a pattern, myself and a handful of other fans/posters, will have seen a potential unheralded opponent, usually deemed a bum by detractors and an easy win by fans, far more times than the casuals that populate the popular fighter's fanbase. So, while the hardcores are predicting a far tougher fight than most are expecting. When the supposed bum/easy win, starts performing better than expected, I think there's a degree of denial fans go through before it thoroughly clicks that their guy is losing rounds, or maybe the momentary inability to process what's happening accurately. Because usually with most things, especially people with fixed thought patterns, they're slow to make adjustments. That can often negatively affect their judgment, and hamper their ability to process what's happening right before their eyes. Because there's a learning curve they must go through, before they can adjust their expectations and start seeing the reality of what's actually occurring. Well if anything, devout fanboys more often than not, are the definition of inflexible. Usually, and I've seen this on several RBR's, people are slow to adjust, when their fighter starts losing rounds, sometimes right out of the gate. So it takes them three or four to finally give the opponent a round. I'm not entirely sure this expectation game warping of reality, doesn't affect the official judges as well. Like what happened with Canelo vs. Bivol. Did it take them 4 or 5 rounds to have what was actually happening finally click? Perhaps.

Granted, it's not out of the question, the people who do expect a tougher fight, don't end up falling into a slight pattern of confirmation bias ourselves, and end up being extra generous, in rounds the "opponent" is being extra competitive in, but more often than not, it's the A-side that's always being given the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the B-side.

Then there's the false perception of reality bias that comes into effect. I covered this in a thread I did over a half a decade ago, called the phenomenon of the terrible opening round. Two good examples being Pascal vs. Yunieski Gonzalez, where YG came out like a steamroller and beat the living hell out of Pascal, who looked on the verge of a stoppage loss in the first round. That was the epitome of a terrible opening round, so much so, it seemed to cloud the minds of many of the viewers for the remainder of the match. Because they were now under the false impression/perception that Gonzalez was having far more success than he actually was. Gonzalez was swinging like a madman, many of the shots were just missing by a hair while Pascal was ducking under them, and counter with looping overhands out of a crouched position. Now don't get me wrong, it was a close fight, 96-94 ether way or 95-95 were all feasible scores. But by no means was it even close to the robbery it was made out to be.

Same thing happened with the first encounter between Froch and Groves. One couldn't have a worse round than Carl, sans literally getting KTFO. Froch got KTFO, somehow managed to wake up right before he hit the mat, and had already popped back up relatively quickly, and had already recalibrated his iron chin to titanium by the round's end, eating a flush nasty one two. So, that had everyone primed and ready to see The Cobra, knocked spark the **** out. They thought Carl was toast and his goose was cooked. So much so, most didn't realize that the 2nd round, 3rd round and 5th rounds were actually quite competitive and could've gone either way. But, it's hard not to be influenced by Jim Watt's rantings and ravings about the end being nigh. So to many, they were shocked when Froch pulled out the stoppage. Whereas I wasn't, because it was apparent to anyone watching with a clear head, that Froch was starting to inflict more and more damage as the rounds were going by, until the inevitable happened. It's just a pity that the ref waved it as soon as he did. Had he let it continue for another minute or two, the stoppage would've been far more definitive.

Then there's the feared power punchers that every is expecting to win by KO, and early, so they're on a tinderbox, biting on every feint and missed shot, thinking it's chopping down an opponent. Reading into the ultra negative body language of the opponent, who's scared of taking a flush punch from said dangerous power puncher. All the while, that scared opponent who's being backed up and bossed around the ring, he's landing jabs and counters, while slipping the incoming fire. So you get what we got in back to back matches with Berlanga. Steve Rolls was clearly boxing his ears off, while Berlanga was landing next to nothing. Yet their perception of reality was so off, they couldn't judge it properly. Then the same happened again with the Roamer Alexis Angulo fight, which thank God, more people happened to see clearly. Primarily due to Angulo walking Berlanga down, albeit in a safety first conservative manner. While all Berlanga was doing was throwing jabs and one twos into the forearms of the Colombian. None of which are scoring shots, just like with Canelo vs. Bivol again.

Then of course, we have matches like Sor Rungvisai vs. Gonzalez 1, Estrada vs. Gonzalez 2, Horn vs. Pacquiao, Cruz vs. Davis, Richards vs. Buatsi, Taylor vs. Catterall, Korobov vs. Charlo, Derevyanchenko vs. GGG, Jacobs and Charlo etc. Where their perceptions of reality are being shattered left and right, and they lose all ability to process what's happening. In some cases, they're giving the A-side far too much credit for perceived successes, in others, not giving the A-side enough credit, because the B-side is overperforming. But also in denial, and refusing to see what's in front of them, and how the rounds are too close to call, and need to be watched under a microscope. Or a little of all of the above. A good example would be GGG vs Derevyanchenko. People were so shocked to see GGG hurt to the body for a second, they started thinking SD had a chance, and started overstating his successes. Meanwhile, they though Sor Rungvisai dropping Chocolatito was a fluke, and wasn't noticing the devastating counter lefts than Sor Rungvisai was pulverizing Roman with for the next 11 rounds. Short circuiting many viewers to the point where they had to go back and rewatch what happened to see it correctly, and even then, many remained in denial.

Look, I'll admit, I can occasionally fall into the confirmation bias loop, because I expect an opponent I'm well versed in, to do better than everyone else. But that doesn't always mean I'm in the wrong either. Sometimes it takes everyone else a round or two to catch up. Although sometimes, I will edge a round that's action packed and hard to score towards the B-side, usually because I genuinely thought they did enough to edge it. But it could be a subconscious bias coming into play. Although will the rest of you admit to your potential blind spots and foibles? Maybe you will. So, what do you think about these observations of mine? Am I nuts, or onto something? How often do you think stuff like this comes into play and can be factored into people's assessments of controversial fights?
Click to expand...

You are one of the most guilty in scoring fights a particular way based on whether you like a fighter or dislike him. Your scoring is frankly atrocious. You more or less had Tank losing every round to Rolly which was BS. Scoring while their might be a level subjectivity has objective criteria Judges have to go by. Yes the official judges sometimes get it wrong but specifically I have noticed you in particular are swayed by your pre-fight prejudices, so many times I feel I know how your scorecards will look.

Log in or Sign up

Do People's Expectations & False Perceptions Of Reality, Affect Their Judgement While Scoring?

tinman Loyal Member Full Member

shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

tinman Loyal Member Full Member

shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

rakan Member Full Member

Serge Ginger Dracula Staff Member

shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

MarkusFlorez99 Boxing Junkie Full Member

turbotime Hall Of Famer Full Member

CST80 De Omnibus Dubitandum Staff Member

Bobby Tony Active Member Full Member

CST80 De Omnibus Dubitandum Staff Member

CST80 De Omnibus Dubitandum Staff Member

don owens Boxing Junkie Full Member

African Cobra The Right Honourable Lord President of the Council banned Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Do People's Expectations & False Perceptions Of Reality, Affect Their Judgement While Scoring?

tinman Loyal Member Full Member

shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

tinman Loyal Member Full Member

shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

rakan Member Full Member

Serge Ginger Dracula Staff Member

shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

MarkusFlorez99 Boxing Junkie Full Member

turbotime Hall Of Famer Full Member

CST80 De Omnibus Dubitandum Staff Member

Bobby Tony Active Member Full Member

CST80 De Omnibus Dubitandum Staff Member

CST80 De Omnibus Dubitandum Staff Member

don owens Boxing Junkie Full Member

African Cobra The Right Honourable Lord President of the Council banned Full Member