Biggest things armchair boxing historians get wrong

1) Thinking that something is wrong if judges differ on scoring. I don’t think some realize that the judges don’t sit together….they’re each at a different side of the ring and so literally have a different view of a fight.
2) The whole “you have to take the belt from the champion” thing. That still gets rolled out and it’s not in the scoring rules of any governing body.
3) Watching a fight in TV is like seeing it in person. Not at all….you don’t have closeups, commentary, clocks, or quite often a sense of who has the physical momentum because the camera follows the action and keeps things central.

 

I also wonder if it’s why boxers with a strong amateur background tend more to controlling the ring center, their punches have to be clearly seen by all judges to count in that sport….you don’t see as many close quarter battles in one corner of the ring, which would be a nightmare to score in amateur bouts.