A few entirely innocent questions about our judges/refs

The promoter of the boxer worth the most wonga.

 

:deal

and the most political power in the boxing world too - they make the right decsions so they can stay gainfully employed on the big promoters shows.

 

A lot have "proper" jobs, like the Premiership refs used to. Whether paying more money to officials would make the quality better (and whether the smaller promoters could afford it) is open to debate.

 

I can see the sentiments behind pay more = get better (maybe), however can it really be justified? I mean take a referee working a British title fight for instance. He'll get paid £150 for that fight. That's for just 12x3 minute rounds. £150 for 36 minutes work is pretty good going!
Unlike the boxers, he doesn't need to be financially compensated for all the sacrifices and training put in before the fight. Basically he just has to show up on the day.
I'm not arguing one way or the other, just looking at it from a different angle.

Also, if the referees fees went up substantially, then the Board would no doubt have a bit of trouble on their hands. A few years ago there was a massive increase on all annual licence fees that caused a wave of controversy with licence holders.
At present a promoter's licence costs £500 annually (£200 if promoting charity events). I'm sure promoters (especially the less prominent ones who struggle as it is), wouldn't be too happy if they not only had to put up with the large annual licence fees, but an increased cost on having to pay officials too. I'm sure they would argue that if the referee's fees were to go up, then there should be a reduction in the licence fees.

 

Maybe the Board can use some of the resources pooled from licence fees to fund eye tests for referees and judges.

 

I''ve not seen the fight properly, how bad was the Napa decision? Forgetting Parris' wayward card was it that bad a split decision?

 

I agree with you, it has an impact that can make or break careers and it is a vitally important job within the sport (and unfortunately often placed in the hands of imbeciles). However, playing Devil's Advocate here, so do nurses, firefighters, police officers, etc do important jobs, but they don't earn £150 for 36 minutes work though.
It is also worth noting that the ref's expenses and acommodation (if meeting the qualifying criteria) are covered also, and not taken out of their fee.

 

I thought Napa won very clearly, and was surprised it was a split decision, let alone McDonnell getting the verdict. Parris' 5 round margin is incomprehensible to me.

 

Fair enough. I just wondered whether it was a closish fight and open to differing interpretations that Parris' card made look worse than it was. The 118-110 card in the Malinaggi-Diaz card did the same thing for that fight.

 

Closest you could have it was 7-5 Napa IMO. Was a pretty bad decision.

 

Well it appears it was a close fight according to some (such as the judges and apparently some at ringside). In my eyes though, it was clearly Napa's fight, but I suppose everyone has their own interpretations. I can accept that of course, however I find it difficult to fathom whichever way you had it, how you could give it by such a wide margin to McDonnell.
If you were to say McDonnell won it, I would disagree. If you were to say McDonnell won it by such a wide margin as Dave Parris had it then I would simply think you were blind, insane or just plain incompetent.

 

I know this is entirely hypothetical but what would you have made of (say) a 115-114, 115-114, 114-115 split decision in McDonnells favour?

The 3 judge system is there to try and even out one bad card. In this fight was there 1 really bad card or 2?

 

I guess we could go for 5 judges then?