Bruno-Witherspoon judges - what the hell?

Why should the 'perceived premier fighter' have the benefit of the doubt? Peceived by, what, most magazine covers? What about Benn-Eubnak rematch for example?

 

Yes magazine space would be one way of identifying who was the premier/premium fighter. It is a personal perception thing, much like judging itself.

As for your example; IMO Eubank was the premier fighting going in as Benn was looking for redemption after the first fight.

 

So Eubank deserved the nod then?

 

I went there, but had a nose bleed place though, but figured Benn had won easy (9-3 if memory serves me right); but watching the replay on TV I remember scoring it 6-6.

 

I went too and I thought Benn won easy and, i agree, on replay it was really close.


But, you scoring a draw? I thought you didn't sit on the fence?

 

LOL..... You got me!

 

But the Benn-Eubank fight is why I always like to listen to the consensus before spouting out about 'robberies'.

 

I rarely (of course there are some) think boxing has robberies, normally a robbery to 95% of the fancy, is a fairly close fight where the consensus bias someone....

 

I dont have a problem with drawn rounds at all.

If you score a round for fighter A, but you concede that the round was close and that giving it to fighter B would not have been totally out of order, then I dont see the problem with accepting that marking the round even is defensible too.

Therefore, in a fight where MANY of the rounds are close could-go-either-way type rounds, I dont see the problem if a judge comes up with scoring MANY rounds even. I just dont see the problem.

What's the worse that can happen ? A fight ends up a DRAW or VERY CLOSE on a scorecard - what's wrong with that ?
I always thought maybe more fights should be called draws. I dont see a problem. I dont get any thrill out of controversial split-decisions and constant arguments about scoring that are so commonplace in this game. In a "could-go-either-way" type fight I believe a draw is the fairest result". Likewise, in a could-have-gone-the-other-way round I think an even score is fair.

A judge's job is to judge the round. A judge who scores 6 out of 12 round even simply judged that neither fighter established an advantage over the other in those rounds - which is actually MORE LOGICAL than saying "I judged Bruno to have gained the advantage in that round, BUT I can see how Witherspoon might have gained the advantage too. But shame on you for scoring it even" or , "Yeah, I can understand you giving those three or four rounds to the other fighter, but I cannot understand how the other judge has ALL those same rounds even " !

I dont think a judge's job is to find a winner at any cost, so that his "judge's eye" has to be so fine-tuned as to make the subtleties of his decision almost arbitrary.

That's just my take though. I realize some of you have another perspective, and even rounds just totally **** you off.

 

Do you think Whitaker-Ramirez was a robbery?

 

I was never fussed on Eubank personally (despite his footballing allegences) and rooted for Benn as he was one of my fave fighters back then. I don't think rematch was a 'robbery' and thought Benn won, I've scored it a few times since (in Benn's favour by about two rounds).

 

Daylight. So was his draw against Chavez. :-(

 

On the "even rounds" debate, I don't award too many of 'em whilst scoring fights. If the general demographic and action of a round has been very, very close to call I'd usually award the round to the fighter I percieve to be moreso the agressor, so long as it's effective.

 

I score a bit different; i'd call such a round a draw.

The reason is i think it's not fair to give one fighter a 10 9 round based on a VERY slight advantage (if any), while he may lose an other round one-sided or clearly, but still have the same 10 9 score. When neither has a clear edge, i don't think it's fair to look for reasons to score it for one or an other.