When compiling ATG lists should Fighting at home be taken into consideration ?

Boxers fighting at home against an overseas opponent have a huge advantage.

Time zones, climate, food, language, being separated from family etc.
The advantage is even more pronounced in major bouts, the impartiallity of the referee and judges is often the biggest disadvantage a foreign fighter will face.

We have to believe that the officials are neutral in the vast majority of cases, but in a small percentage of boxing matches one or more of the officials may be biased, and this could affect the result.
As well as some fights being affected by biased officials, even more fights in my opinion are affected by officials that do not regard themselves as biased or set out to be biased, but are influenced by the roar of the crowd when the home boxer throws a flurry of punches, these officials may subconciously be biased, they may want their fellow countryman to win, yet tell themselves i will be fair, that official will then possibly be looking for any good work from the home town boxer so he can give him the round, perhaps an official that falls into that catorgory could be called 'a little one eyed' as oppossed to biased, but unfortunately it still adds up to the same thing, a wrong decision.

It seems to me, ATG list compilers take into consideration the lack of opportunities afforded to black boxers in the early days of boxing like Sam Langford and Charley Burley and rightly so, yet is any consideration given to Overseas boxers, fighting away from home ?
A boxer losing a very close decision away from home may be seen by a list compiler as having had the better result, and the list compiler may rank the defeated boxer above the victor ?

For instance Jofre twice travelled from Brazil to fight Harada in Japan,
Jofre lost the first fight on a split decision and lost the second fight on points,the scores were close.
I have never seen these fights, there is obviously a big cultural difference between the countries, yet from just seeing the scores i would bet that if those fights had taken place in Sao Paulo, Jofre would have won !
and whats more Jofre would have won the bouts in Brazil by a bigger margin than Harada had won by in Japan.
For the record there was a judge and a referee with Anglo Saxon sounding names in the first fight , one scored the fight to to Jofre and one scored the fight to Harada, the remaining judge had a Japanese name and gave the fight to Harada by 2 points.
In the rematch there was one Anglo Saxon {name} official who found in favour of Harada by a single point and 2 Japanese {names} officials scored the fight in favour of Harada by 2 clear points and by 3 clear points.
At first glance the scoring of both bouts was fairly consistant by all the judges but on closer investigation the judges with Japanese sounding names scored the fights more decisively in favour of the home boxer than the judges with neutral sounding names.
I am not saying that the results of these particular fights are suspect, i am just trying to point out that in my view home advantage can be the difference between winning and losing.

Bernard Hopkins fought in Ecuador against Segundo Mercado for the vacant IBF middleweight title in 1994 and fought out a 12 round draw, 4 months later the same boxers boxed in America with Hopkins winning with a 7th round TKO, and miles ahead on every score card at the time.

So bad home town verdicts =

Holyfield v Lewis 1st fight-DRAW {Lewis arguably won every single round, he at least won 9 of the 12 rounds}

Ottke v Reid - Ottke win {Ottke was outclassed and outboxed}

Since America is the mecca of boxing and most big fights over the last 100 years have been in America, often featuring an American against an Overseas boxer, there would be a large amount of questionable results in American boxers favours, therefore should a list compiler that has difficulty seperating Joe Louis, Roy Jones Jnr and Carlos Monzon in an ATG list, rank Monzon higher as Louis and Roy Jones Jnr never fought one single fight outside of their own country ?

PS I seem to rank non Americans higher in my lists that American list compilers, typically i would rank Roberto Duran, Jimmy Wilde and Lennox Lewis higher than my American counterparts as i give a lot of weight to their away from home performances.

 

I do think there is a rule.

I do not think Lewis was at a disadvantage fighting in the USA, nor Duran, but perhaps Reid, in Germany, against Ottke was, same with Malinga against Benn in Britain; indeed many would agree that Chavez did not suffer by fighting Whitaker in Pernell's home country.

 

I am not talking about specific fights {although i gave a couple of examples}, just in general 5 out of every 100 fights {in my estimation} will be given to the home town boxer because of one eyed officials, do other posters recognise this to be a fact and give credit to a boxer fighting away from home.

Would Harada have beaten Jofre in Brazil ?
Would Hopkins have beaten Calzaghe in Wales ?
When Hatton was rumoured to be fighting Pacman at Wembley, i fancied Hattons chances now the fight is going to be on neutral ground in the States, i no longer fancy his chances, that is how big home advantage to my mind at least is ?
I actually heard a bookmaker trying to explain on a radio programme once, when there was strong talk of the Kessler v Calzaghe fight happening, that if the fight was in Wales,
Calzaghe would be the favourite and if the fight was in Denmark, Kessler would be the favourite, the DJ kept saying how can that be when the ring is the same size ?
The bookie then explained some of the factors that would make the home town boxer the favourite.

 

Hopkins-Mercado I was, mostly, the climate/altitude.

Quito is roughly 9500feet above sea level. Denver, an American city infamous for its home-town advantages due to altitude, is only 5300ft above sea level.

Hopkins says that he was exhausted by the middle rounds. I can imagine why.

 

Climate, thats a very good example of home advantage.

Colin Jones fought a draw against Milton McCrory in Reno for the World Welterweight title, i thought Jones had won as McCrory was running away all the time ?
The rematch was in an outdoor arena at midday in Las Vegas ! the temperature was over
100 degrees, Colin Jones is from just outside Swansea in Wales, Swansea is officially the wettest City in the UK, guess what Jones lost a split decision to the American.

 

In 1986 Barry McGuigan faced the relatively unknown Stevie Cruz from Texas in what proved a gruelling fifteen-round title bout under a blazing sun. McGuigan held a lead halfway through, but suffered dehydration because of the extreme heat and wilted near the end, being dropped in rounds ten and fifteen. He eventually lost a close decision and his world belt, which he was never to reclaim. After the fight, McGuigan required hospitalisation because of his dehydrated state.

 

The reason McGuigan lost to Cruz, had a lot more to do with management disputes than fighting Stevie Cruz in a hot Las Vegas.....

 

Talk about the result, and most everybody will tell you that the heat of the Vegas desert, and this alone, caused Barry’s loss. There is no doubt that the burning heat and high temperature were huge factors in the outcome of the fight - between a guy who was used to such weather conditions and one who in no way was - but the boxing skills of the little known Texan Stevie Cruz played a role too. More than likely Barry would have won had the fight been held in his native Ireland, but going in to the fight with the nine to one underdog no-one was at all concerned with the thought of him losing his featherweight title. A huge boxing upset was about to be witnessed!

The above is a passage from an article written for ESB by James Slater

 

Notice that Slater states that if the McGuigan v Cruz fight had been in Ireland, McGuigan would have won - i believe that statement to be a racing certainty.
Home advantage was decisive for Cruz. If McGuigan had enjoyed home advantage he would have won.

 

A huge row with Eastwood and a late change of opponent that McGuigan did not want, were just as important factors as well IMO.

 

I believe you are correct about the Eastwood arguement being a factor, but not the decisive factor i think the heat was the decisive factor.
Anyway out of interest do you think that home advantage stands for anything in boxing ?
In most cases a ring is a ring, but in some cases climate, judging etc can be a big advantage to the home boxer, particularly if they are well matched ?

 

Of course, for years the running joke was a British fight needed to score a knockout to get a draw in Europe or indeed America, but as was shown with Sugar-Boy we were probably just as bad. The South Africans got their revenge by robbing The Mighty Quinn against Pretorius.

The worse I ever heard about was when a Judge in Italy scored all but the last round even in a Belcastro/Hardy fight (forget which one). Buchanan lost his '0' by allegedly very dodgy decision in Spain. I remember Joe Cortez standing up to the Italians to make sure Benn beat Galvano in Italy. Akinwande will never forget his draw with Schultz; Axel does, as he spent the 12 rounds in a jab induced daze!

 

i think your system is abit unfair on the americans as all the money is in america so they have no need to fight outside there own country.

but i understand what your saying

 

Unfair refereeing and judging, certainly needs to be accounted for, travelling can also be a bit difficult (less so now). But if a fighter beats the top opposition in their hometown, fair play to them, its just usually home town fights don't fight the biggest fights anyway.

 

It's strange that you have produced this thread, considering you are a mad manic fan of Mr Cardiff Ice Rink 1997-2006.

To be honest, I don't give much weight to your theory. Unless the judges are unquestionably biased towards the hometown fighter in a points decision (such instances are pretty rare now and generally well-documented) or the visiting fighter suffers from the conditions (McGuigan-Cruz is a great example, Barry would've wiped him out in Belfast), then I don't see it as a "huge" disadvantage.

Boxing is two men in a ring. Irrespective of everything outside those ropes on the night, boxing is two men in a ring, and that's the most important thing.

Also, to rate fighters who had most of their fights outside their home country more highly is illogical and unfair against American fighters. Yes most prize fights happen in America, but that is because the money is in America, American boxers should not be penalized for an economic climate/condition outwith their control. Most successful boxers fight in America so often that it is a second home for them, they become accustomed to it from fighting there so often, plus (crucially) many of their fights are against fellow non-Americans (especially at the lower weights) so I don't see this as a huge disadvantage or a huge issue at all these days.

JMO :good