ALMOST bad decisions - where 1 judge was wrong ?

Barney Ross - Jimmy McLarnin:

fight 1:
referee: Eddie Forbes 11-2
judge: Tom O'Rourke 1-9
judge: Harold Barnes 13-1

fight 2:
referee: Arthur Donovan 5-10
judge: Charley Lynch 8-6
judge: Tommy Shawtell 5-6

and to thave the trilogy complete:

fight 3:
referee: Jack Dempsey 5-3
judge: Abe Goldberg 8-6
judge: George LeCron 9-4

 

A couple on a slightly different tangent:

First my pet hate... drawn rounds:

A judge is there to judge, there has never been a round where two fights have exactly mirrored each other; thus there has to be a winner for every single round of boxing and a judge is there to judge that.

So scoring a round 10/10 is not doing your job as a judge; so although he scored the fight right in the sense Duran probably deserved the first Leonard fight by a round or two to score ten rounds even is a disgrace for Angelo Poletti.

Another, to the other extreme, would be that of one of the judges in the Bobby Czyz/George O'Mara match-up.

Czyz scored no knockdowns but dominated all ten rounds winning 100-90 on two cards. The third judge also had it a shut out to Czyz; but scored the bout 100-73....

 

I totally disagree on the idea that there shouldn't be drawn rounds. There are examples when there is nothing to separate two fighters, so what do you do- give one a whole point advantage because they threw one more jab- and if it missed does the other fella get the 10-9? And what if the next five rounds were virtual carbon copies? Do you give each a 10-9? Are any of those 10-9s shared? If not, then an extremely close fight, on your card, could be something like 60-54 after six rounds.

 

Yes you do, because that way you help expose the patheticness of 10 point must. There is a much fairer ways to score a bout IMO.

 

Well I agree there. I don't like 10-point must at all. The old '5 for round winner and from 4 down for his opponent' is probably my favourite.

 

Well I would liked the following to be experimented with:

One scorecard combining all three judges opinion would be broken down as such:

All the three judges have to do is say who won the round, or if the round was even

If a judge scores the round to fighter A then fighter A gains one point.
If the judge scores the round to fighter B then fighter B gets one point.
If a Judge scores the round even; neither fighter is awarded a point.

If all three judges score a round to one of the fighters, that fighter receives a bonus point.

If a fighter receives a count from the referee, his opponent receives a three point bonus.

A referee at his discretion can penalize a fighter either; one, two or three points at anytime during the bout. This would be done like now with the ref stopping the action and making the supervisor (and hopefully the crowd) aware of the boxers indiscretion and his punishment.

 

If I understand your system, one judge could overrule the other two by scoring a close fight one-sidedly. We have all seen close and very competitive fights which almost everyone scores 5-5 or 5-4-1 but one judge somehow sees as 9-1. That type of judge would decide the voting under your system.

 

Would you explain to me the difference in practice between a 10 point must and a five point must. I don't really see any difference other than the number of points awarded.

 

Yes they would put a bias in, then it would be the responsibility of the appropriate boxing board of control or alphabet organization to resolve the matter.

My suggestion is far from perfect, but it is a way of rewarding fighters who win a round comfortable, but do not score a knockdown.

But ultimately no matter what is used it is always going to be down to a personal opinion of a human being.

 

I can accept a drawn round or two, though I very very rarely score them myself, but when it gets more than that then yeah, I think it smacks more of lazy judging to me. "Gee, that was a close right, maybe I could think about it a bit more...nah, 10-10 then."

Two which jump to mind are Frederico Vollmer scoring about 3 or 4 rounds of Holyfield-Tyson I as drawn. The other is whichever judge at Rahman vs Tua I in '98 somehow gave 5 drawn rounds on his card before the stoppage.

 

I think the 10 point-must system should just be altered a bit. A close round should be scored 10-9 to whoever the judges though won, a round where there was a clear winner should be given as 10-8, and a round with a knockdown should be 10-7 and so on and so forth. That way a fight like Taylor-Hopkins would be easier to score and rounds where a fighter clearly won a rewarded more so then a really close-tight round.

 

That's an interesting approach. However, i fear the discussion will only shift from "who deserved that round" to "was that a 10 9 or 10 8 round?". The border remains vague.

 

Calzaghe-Hopkins .

116-111, 115-112, 113-114

 

Well, doesn´t fit in here because two judges were off.

 

:good Good call, forgot about that one.

Another fight which ended in a TKO with 2 seconds to go in rd 12 was the Chavez v Taylor fight which 2 judges had for Taylor & rightly so but incredibly one judge had Chavez leading going into rd 12. That was a ****ed up scorecard.