Can the Benavidaz-Herrera decision be justified?

Let me put it this way. When the announcer was reading the scorecards (116-112 x2 and 117-111), I thought to myself, man they finally got it right for Herrera. When he said, "And the new champion....." my heart dropped. I couldn't believe that the worthless CORRUPT judges ROBBED Herrera of a well earned decision victory.

Even before the cards were read, Lederman was reading his scorecard and said, "I hope they don't rob Herrera." Guess what? They did.

Sad thing is, this type of BS is going to continue because we as boxing fans allow it and there is no one to seriously investigate the shenanigans going on behind the scenes between the promoters and the judges.

IMO, the best way to discover a corrupt and/or incompetent judge is to do this. Have them write a summary of what they saw during the fight or each round. You can even give them the benefit of the doubt and let them look at a tape of the fight. That way, they can provide a summary to us, the fans and the respective athletic commission, of what exactly these idiots are looking at. So say for example that they give some bull**** summary, then we know for a fact that they are either incompetent or corrupt because they then can't hide behind the excuse of why they couldn't remember why they scored a round a certain way.

Just my two cents.

 

I'll be honest - I switched over to Showtime after the first three (at which point I had it 30-27 Herrera)...but unless Benavidez swept the following nine straight - and from the sound of it he did no such thing - you can't turn up that 117-111 junk.

 

Why on earth should that make any difference? :huh

Just because there's less chance of all board members having seen it?

 

Herrera seemed to have won a minimum of 7 rounds and 8 sounds about right.

 

The only rationale i can explain without using corruption is that watching a fight live compared to on television is completely different. There are many angles that someone watching it live cannot see that someone watching on tv can plus so many distractions (rowdy crowd, a celebrity, pretty woman, etc). I've noticed that the few televised events I have been to my scorecard changes somewhat significantly when I rematch it on tv.

 

What was the last major title fight that had the result overturned?

 

Should we have the judges watching the fight on a screen without any commentary rather than at ringside?

Would certainly make their job a whole lot easier and take the crowd influence out of the equation. Seems like a solid idea.

 

Maybe! Something needs to be done as we can't continue having so many of these awful scorecards.

Be it due to incompetence or corruption something needs to change.