Can the Benavidaz-Herrera decision be justified?

Or maybe it just wasnt that hard of a shot? Maybe the HBO crew was speculating as usual? Maybe everyone who has Benavidez doing anything significant is also speculating? hmm. :conf

Judging criteria

effective aggression - what, as he was retreating and getting outboxed most of the fight did he do to demonstrate effective aggression? Other than speculation and imagination, and maybe some color commentary from the HBO whos job is to keep talking and make the fight sound interesting, what evidence in body language or effectiveness was there was Herrera was ever hurt?

For all anyone knows Benavidez is packing glass and was more hurt than Herrera, which is why he was controlled and pushed around most of the fight?

ring generalship - How was Benavidez controlling the fight?

Still, all we have are speculations that somehow despite him continuing to get outboxed he hurt Herrera. It doesnt matter if he punches harder in absolute terms, Herrera is also a tough guy. Benavidez was not effective with his aggression in stopping, KDing, hurting, or even dissuading Herrera.

If he had visibly damaged, hurt, or maybe even dissuaded Herrera with his shots I might be inclined to agree with you. My issue here is that Benavidez supposedly having the more damaging shots is not evidenced by anything in the fight. It doesnt matter if he might hit harder in absolute terms, he was not able to make whatever power he does possess effective in the fight and hurt his opponent.

He lost on scoring shots and ring generalship by large margins. Therefore he deserves to lose the fight.

Herrera looked able to go another 12 rounds at the end of the fight, nor was he ever visibly rocked or hurt. Plus Benavidez shots looked pretty average to me, Mattythse he aint.

 

This was one of the worst boxing decisions I have ever come across and I am absolutely disgusted. The judges need sacking asap and should never ever be allowed to score a fight again. I feel so sorry for Herrera now, he puts hard work in the gym, puts his life on the line and then gets robbed by idiots who have never fought in their life. It disgusts me. If there was any justice in this world Herrera right now should be the unified 140 champ and Garcia should have a loss.

 

herrera got robbed period.

 

Yep:good bottom line!

 

I was ****ing ****ed. Herrera dominated that dude.

 

The one guy insisting on a wide score for Benavidez, it should be noted, was trolling hard in the role of Benavidez cheerleader even before the fight started in the RBR thread.

 

Very interesting read, if most people agree with this then now I understand why their coming to the conclusions their coming to...but I don't agree at all. Basically, you're going by amateur rules unless something tells you otherwise. Unless at some point you see someone obviously physically hurt the other then your under the assumption no one is hurting the other and you have nothing else to go on but who was hit who more. Understandable conclusion but incorrect, trust me, that is not what their doing, they are always making calculations as to how hard someone was hit.

I know because that's how I've been scoring for years and my scorecard is seldom very far from theirs, all the while I've been confusingly having to hear cries of robberies. There is always evidence as to who is hitting harder, and 90% is not going to be as obvious as making one stagger, buckle, stumble etc. most of it is an are through body and facial language (things that even science will tell you we are experts at reading on a subconscious level, better than even words because it can't lie)

After being hit, they come in the form of pauses in action, strained appearances, grimaces, strained smiles, immediate reactions, brow movements etc. Boxers are expert poker players and so the judges have to be too, they have to learn to pick up on the subtlest clues as to hard how a person was hit, and they are always there, always look at the immediate reaction of a person being and then calculate how strong that reaction was. Like how long did he pause, how hard did he blink, how hard did he grimace, how hard did his brows turn down, how hard did body look strained etc.

I remember clearly Benavidez almost having a relaxed appearance about his body and face while Herrera threw his volley's of punches, (minimal damage) while when Herrera was hit I could sense much more strain, tension, trust me, they were scoring that. I know these words will probably get me nowhere except some ridicule as people don't like to change their minds, so I'm about done talking. Oh and throw that scoring criteria out of your mind unless after trying to determine who laid out more damage and you can't. I guess maybe that's what you did here but, believe me, there were plenty of indications Benavidez was doing more damage, you have to get better at picking up on them or you will continue to see many, many, robberies in your mind.

 

I saw six of the seven on Saturday, missing the Harerra.

I'm going to watch it this evening.

But before I score it, I really ned to know how SweetHomeBama had it.

 

Benavidez shutout? :yep

He isn't partial to Herrera types.

 

The best explanation for Bama's scoring is that he gets the two fighters' names mixed up.

 

How, exactly?

 

I see what you are saying, but I think if you try too hard you start seeing things that arent there - and I think it likely that most people scoring for Benavidez are suffering confirmation bias since the perception going in was that Herrera cant punch.

ie: if we saw the exact same fight except with Thurman, people would be saying Benavidez was timid and getting pushed to the ropes because he was intimidated and hurt.

While I do not think your method is exactly wrong, I think that "damage" needs to get translated somehow in a meaningful way in the fight. Its not AM rules, its trying to keep objective about the fight and score it on performance.

This is why, in the absence of visible damage I like falling back to ring generalship. If someone is able to be effective with their aggression, they should also be able to be the ring general. If one guy isnt visibly hurt the better way to tell who is winning or losing is behavior in the ring.

By definition if you start scoring on minute facial expressions, you are also at risk of giving the fight to the guy with the better poker face. Different people have different reactions, and different thresholds of reaction - subconscious or no. If the aggression is truly effective, over the course of multiple rounds it will start effecting their performance in the fight.

Damage doesnt need to be as obvious as a staggering, I certainly agree. But if the damage is not sufficient to alter the performance of the other guy in any way, or dissuade him from his game , or do anything but twitch an eyebrow I do fail to see how it was effective.

My beef here is that Benavidez didnt really "do" anything in the fight, other than maybe be the naturally harder puncher. If he cant even slow Herrera down with that, I just dont see how he should get the nod when he lost in every other dept.

 

The ONLY way it can be justified is if you DKSAB and think that those little shots Herrera lands every few seconds aren't effective. It hurts to be clubbed in the head with a hard object like a fist. And they do look ineffective...I had to remind myself a few times "well those do actually hurt, especially a lot of them....and if they weren't effective idk how he keeps Benavidez backing up and not throwing..."

Short answer: Judges who haven't boxed. Should be a prerequisite....10 amateur fights or something.