Boxing - incompetence or corruption?

I don’t think they actually pay them off. I just think if you get 3 people watching a fight and judging it on their own opinion then there’s likely to be variations. If you chose 3 of us for the Wilder fight some had Wilder winning I had the knockdown in the last making it a draw then people had Fury wide. Same with KG and Warrington. Although I do feel the 116-112 card was incompetence!

 

Corruption exists, yes. Pay-offs, gifts, career moves, etc. It goes on in boxing and everywhere else.
A lot of them probably self-impose the promotional bias and favour the house fighter because they don't want to upset the status quo. They want to kiss ass.
And some are just bad judges and figure it's better to err on the side of the house and get it wrong that way than get it wrong and be hated by the fans AND the power-brokers of boxing.
Sometimes they are very much swayed by the crowd too.

I wouldn't like to be a judge though. We all see things the other way to the majority from time to time.

 

Does anyone know how much a judge is paid for a world title fight? I haven't a clue but it might shed some light on the situation. Does the bigger the bill equal the bigger the cheque for a judge? If so then it makes sense that the 'name' wins and there could be a case of bias, subconscious or otherwise.

Also, how much sway does a promoter have on who judges a fight? Again that could shed some light on things, but once again I haven't a clue.

 

I imagine corruption does exist (i.e. brown envelopes full of money changing hands), but I doubt it's as prevalent as some claim. Incompetence often gets confused with corruption.

Other, more subtle factors could come into play, too. Let's say you're a judge and you have scored fights in favour of a boxer fighting a particular promoters fighters. This could make said promoter weary of having you judge one of their future fights. I'm not entirely sure how it works in the UK, but in America, judges are appointed to a fight in a process that involves the fight promoter, the state commission and the sanctioning body. As the promoters have a say in this hiring process, judges may be weary of going against the house fighter. This could lead to anything from flat out cheating by a judge, to the judge scoring close rounds to the house fighter.

Another factor is that promoters pay the judges (again, this is in the US. I'm not sure about the UK). As well as this potentially leading to the same problems I outlined above, it can also have a subconscious effect on the judges. I read an article a few back by an American judge and he said that promoters generally treat the judges well; they pay their wage for judging the fight, pay their hotel and travel expenses, some even give a per diem to them. These judges being taken care of, and essentially wined and dined by the team of one of the protagonists in a fight they are judging could lead to an unconscious bias to said team.

The thing about the points I raised in the last two paragraphs is that a judge could potentially consciously or unconsciously favour a particular fighter without that fighters promoter having to engage in any direct corruption. Yes, if they wanted to they could out and out cheat. However, if they don't want to do that, the very nature of the set up of appointing and paying judges allows the potential for favouritism.

 

The numbers say corruption and favoritism, as if it was merely incompetence both a and b sides (hate those terms) would have equal opportunity to suffer or benefit from it, instead of the usual 95/5 split.
Although it's not as simple as the brown envelope in most cases, like @Jacko already pointed out. Although I also firmly believe a large portion of judges aren't only subconciously influenced, but deliberately score in favor of the home/featured fighter to keep getting gigs.

And then there's the actual brown envelope situation which I definitely believe happens.
I think Vegas judges might get them from some of the casino's/bookmakers to set up illogical outcomes in bigger fights, so they can take the better's money.

 

Corruption, incompetence, pay outs, no accountability - list goes on.

 

The 3 fights you mention were all close and any result was a possibility.
The extremely dubious events and officiating in the wbss on Saturday would be a better example

 

Corruption is embedded within most high level sports. You only need to look at FIFA, IAAF, UCI and see what shenanigans go on. You can go a step further and say it's embedded within society whenever there are large sums of money involved.

Boxing suffers especially due to its fragmented governance and lack of accountability when issues do arise. All power brokers have strong vested interests, which override any concern for the better interests of the sport.

There will be some tangible acts of corruption (see the IBF ratings scandal), but a lot of it is subconsciously favouring the house fighter along with confirmation bias. For example, the judges watching Roy Jones - Glen Johnson may have given Jones credit for controlling early parts of the fight while backed against the ropes (as he had done often in his career), rather than the actual arse-kicking that was happening. It is a difficult job in that respect where you are expected to switch off everything you know about the fighters and their history, and call it as you see it.

Part of the issue with poor judging is that it is a very difficult job, where if you play it straight is a long road to the top where the (overt) rewards are limited and you will inevitably take a lot of **** along the way. The people with the skills and experience required to be a quality judge would almost certainly be able to put those to better use in another field, so you're left with either people with genuine love for the sport or people who get "something else" out of it. To get consistent high quality judging there needs to be something like an elite panel with proper accountability of performance, a competitive salary and transparent selection process. Alejandro Rochin should have been held to account for how he scored Wilder-Fury 115-111, but instead he was publicly defended by the WBC president (who happens to be his countryman) and has continued to get world title fights since then.

 

My Dad was having a lengthy discussion in his cab with someone very high up at a well known boxing management company. The man had previously been involved with premier league Football, and various other top end sports - he didn't go into much detail but he had just came to the end of his first year in boxing and couldn't believe how the business run. He said everything you think is going on is going on and from top to bottom the business was so murky.

He was saying how he had been warned etc but having worked in football he thought he was well prepared but a year in he was still shocked on a daily basis that it was bent as it was. Perhaps not in them words but reading between the lines, it sounds like that was what he was implying. Take of that what you will.

 

I can well imagine.

Apparently, the way it works with dodgy refs and judges is that as opposed to outright brown envelopes (although that may well happen), is that they are under no illusion that if they' don't bring back a "favourable" result then they won't be seeing much (well paid) work that neck of the woods again. Quite the motivator eh.

Look, boxing is 80% showbusiness, 20% sport.

Going off on a slight tangent here but regarding incompetance and just a general lack of professionalism, look at how boxing is covered in the media. Print media (online and off) is near enough dead for boxing coverage save an occasional piece by Bunce in the Indy.

Just look at the way that this "new media" i.e. YouTube has taken over from print journalism and the effect that has had. YT'er asks too many dodgy questions or says the wrong thing on twitter = no media pass = no YT views. Fury literally had Ellie Seckbach thrown out of one of his Wilder pressers due to something he had said on twitter about him.

The printed media wasn't exactly the most critical, but it was a hell of a lot more scathing than some of the glorified toadies we have pumping us PR today.

There are some major, major issues that need to be addressed, or at least should be in any respectable sport. For example; PED's, weight-cutting to near death levels, what is being done to address the now tail end of the Olympic boom, the current ama scene etc, yet all we ever hear is gossip-tier piffle. Even the title of this thread could and should be addressed, and not just allowed to be shrugged off as "ahh well it's always been like that".

 

This. As someone once told me, you get corruption in the local Bridge club if there's a pool of money involved.

Good shout on the split governance as well. Big factor.

 

I often think there's one dodgy judge out of the three. So they're not necessarily going to get the decision they want, but they can soften the impact and reduce the damage. So a clear points defeat becomes a split decision, or a narrow defeat becomes a draw.

So the objective is to get cards that are still in the credible zone, but in your guys favour. When it goes wrong you get an Adelaide Byrd moment, but most of the time it's just about possible that it was a fair card.

Of course all of this is supposition and guesswork and can easily be dismissed as such, but that's how I've come to view the wonderful world of boxing judging....

 

Bit of both.

Perception is reality.

 

Its a mixture of both. Corruption is rife in boxing but so to is incompetence.