Neutral judge had Khan winning, the two Americans scored for Peterson

quit your crying

judges scoring is not an issue in this fight but the refereeing that is

 

:|:|

 

No, it's not fair. There are many reasons that shouldn't happen. Ironically, this fight show one reason why that shouldn't be the standard. The two American judges did a better job scoring the fight than the Puerto Rican judge. We can also go to the first Lewis/Holyfield fight and see that the U.K judge scored it a draw.

 

Define "neutral judge". You may have just identified the judge that was on board to toe the Golden Boy line and give the thing at all costs to the "moneyed fighter".

Hard to blame the other two (quite sensible, in my mind) judges for not giving the fight to the guy who was standing up on the ropes taking uppercuts through his guard, not returning fire for a good 15 minutes of the fight. When Khan wasn't getting beat up on the ropes he was running at warp speed all over the place in one of the most frantic displays I've ever witnessed. I don't believe the word "ring generalship" applies to the type of hectic, desperate, and hysterical footwork that Khan showed the world. Meanwhile, Peterson -- not much of a puncher -- was purposefully cutting off the ring and landing body punches and hooks by the dozen.

Funny the "neutral" judge missed all that.

 

And incidentally, the "neutral" Italian judges (or wherever they come from) that are flown in for the German cards are, obviously, not in any meaningful way "neutral".

 

Had khan winng but no way did he beat peterson 115-110 and no way did peterson beat khan 115-110. Thats just a crazy score.

 

Bringing up single examples over boxing history does not invalidate my point that international fight should have international judges. At the end of the day it's up to the single judge how qualified he/she is to score a fight properly, but you need to realize in a world of 'subjective scoring', leaving the possibility of national bias only makes things worse. And unfortunately the pattern is clear when local judges are involved. This statement cannot be invalidated because it's essentially correct. International judges to international fights and THEN start to discuss who did their job good or bad. Or all countries should use local judges (can u imagine that? ). An even playing field...

 

I guess we'll see what happens in March. I look forward to it

 

What makes things worse is eliminating quality judges from big fights based solely off of nationality. That won't help anything. It's ridiculous for a variety of reasons.

 

This content is protected

 

of course, a general matter, its desirable to have international judges. The fact that these international judges know what's good for their career (i.e. please the promoter) is hard to deny.

But your thread isn't about boxing judging policy as a general matter, it's about this specific fight. And your claim is that the neutral judge had it right. That sure seems to be what is conveyed by the title of this thread. And what people are saying is: no, the "neutral" judge had the worst scorecard.

It is very hard to consistently win rounds when one is semi-conscious on the ropes taking countless body blows and uppercuts. But to win 115-110 with the point deductions? That is not a good scorecard.

 

I'm sure we can find quality judges who aren't from the same nationality as the local fighter in big fights. Is the situation really that black and white that by trying to eliminate nationality bias we automatically eliminate all the qualified judges?

 

What do you consider a "big fight"? For example was Johan Perez's bout last night a "big fight"?

 

don't forget the ref was black

 

Bent refs hey?

There certainly was one bent ref last night.... how the **** do you score it 115-110 khan WITH 2 POINTS TAKEN OFF???????????