A few entirely innocent questions about our judges/refs

If those hypothetical scores were in McDonnell's favour, then I would have thought it was a poor decision. I honestly didn't see it being close at all, at least not to the point where it would be a split decision.

 

I just worry that the one bad card makes things looks worse than it really was or what actually happened (that a fighter won a slightly contentious split decision) and everyone goes into knee-jerk mode but people seem to be saying any card for McD was wrong so maybe thats not the case.

 

I quite enjoyed this ****ing post..

Good Story..

 

I wonder what fights would be like, without a refferee...........

 

I have been thinking about this as well, why not go for the diving scoring system which takes away the scorecards most in favour of either fighter with the three in the middle being chosen. Ring recently had a blog covering the issue but they didn't actually suggest anything revelutionary.

 

Guys like Mills Lane, must make afew Grand a fight...

 

Anyone know how much Parris and that lot get for german cards?

 

The best judges money can buy?

 

It is a really difficult situation to address the problems fairly and effectively.


One of the problems, I think, is that referees and judges are largely unaccountable to anyone for their decisions, that is to say 99.9% their decisions are final and go formally unchallenged by the Board.
Maybe if there was to be some sort of a sub-commitee set up by the Board that all judges/referees had to answer to in order to justify their decisions, that may help things a bit.

For example, every time there is a split decision, then the judges who scored must go before a panel of maybe 5, made up of ex-pro boxers, trainers, etc and explain their actions to justify their scores. Of course, some split decisions are "legit" due to the closeness of a particular contest or they're genuinely down to interpretation. However, the outrageous ones will be a bit more difficult to explain.
If a judge/referee is deemed by the panel to have scored a fight hugely out of line with the majority view, and the panel also disagree with the subjective fairness of the decision, then that ref/judge will not be allowed to work a fight for 28 days.
Should this happen to a ref/judge twice, on the third time he is suspended from working any contest for three months. Any more after that - he loses his licence.

In the event the referee is the sole scorer of a contest, or the judges score a very bad, controversial unanimous decision, then those in question can be called before the panel should the team of the boxer hard done by make a formal appeal.

Of course, all this is timely and costly and by no means a perfect answer. And no doubt there are several flaws in the plan that would need ironing out when in practice. However, it would be a start.
The problem is, as I say, these officials can virtually do what they like and don't have to answer to anyone. And even if they are called in front of the Board should the opposing camp appeal, it is very rare - next-to-never - that their decisions are re-assessed/overturned, so the damage that has been done still stands , and people like poor Ian Napa are still screwed.


If a referee or judge already had a "pre-meditated" idea in his mind of more or less what he was going to decide during a contest (and I dare say it does happen!), if there is a risk of suspension/losing his licence if his decision is blatantly out of touch with reality, then I'm sure he would think twice before screwing over a specific boxer.
Again not perfect, but a starting point.

 

One of the more annoying things to me than an incompetent official, is an inconsistent incompetent official.
For me the very worst one we have is Terry O'Connor. I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but just look at this man's double standards when looking at two particular contests he has refereed:
Calzaghe-Manfredo and Khan-Prescott.

Some argue Calzaghe's stoppage of Manfredo was premature (though this is pretty much a mute point anyway as there was only going to be one winner), and I understand if a boxer isn't throwing anything back when under fire he's going to get stopped. However, Manfredo was hardly on ***** street and wasn't hurt badly, or if at all. Yet O'Connor jumped in there virtually as soon as Joe started throwing punches!

Then Prescott practically decapitated Khan, and hurt him far, far worse than what Manfredo was against Calzaghe, yet O'Connor let him get up and gave him every opportunity to carry on, even though it was clear to everyone blessed with the gift of vision Khan was in no fit state to continue and shouldn't have been allowed to take anymore further punishment. Yet that is exactly what O'Connor allowed, maybe in hope that somehow the "house" fighter can turn it around.

Is it coincidence that two very different situations involving "home" fighters (who both happened to be Frank Warren fighters at the time, which may or may not mean anything - FW's lawyers!) were favoured with a bias of conflicting decisions made by O'Connor?

 

Bull****.

You should watch the post-fight from Randall-Chavez: you think Steele ever did Chavez favours?!?

The Taylor stoppage was just, don't see why people can't get over it.

 

I was extremely frustrated I couldnt get on here to discuss the Napa-McDonnell fight as some tosspot banned me for slagging off James Toney. I had Napa winning by quite a large margin, wider than Jim Watt had it, at points he was giving a bit of a masterclass in countering and his work on the inside was impressive. Dave Parris needs to take up judging a different sport because his card was little short of disgraceful. If I was Napa I'd be hard pressed to carry on boxing, whats the point if you're going to be consistently denied a blatant win? Its either corrupt or just horrible judging and either way Parris should be reprimanded over it. It runied a really good fight for me which was a damn shame.