Eusebio Pedroza vs. Salvador Sanchez

But, the WBA usually allowed his biased countryman, Rodolfo Hill, to judge many of his road fights. He scored Lockridge-Pedroza I 149-139 for Pedroza. The referee, who was a WBA house ref, had it for Pedroza by 6 points. Harold Lederman, who is a IBHOF judge, socred it 144-142 for Lockridge. The consensu was it was a close fight either way.

The Panamanian based WBA made sure it did all it could to protect Pedroza.

Don't underestimate the effect of boxing politics by the corrupt WBA back in the day.

 

When Sanchez beat Pat Ford by majority decision to of the judges were Mexican.

 

How'd they score it? Was any card as blatantly biased as that of Rofolfo Hill in Pedroza-Lockridge I.

 

How about the rematch? Cristodoulu was a good ref imo.

 

• Here's the scoring of Sanchez-Ford
• Referee: Lou Filippo
• Judge: Ramon Berumen 148-139
• Judge: Jose M. Escalante 145-145
• Judge: Arlen Bynum 145-141

the US judge gave it to Sanchez by four points and one Mexican judge had it even. Mexican judge Ramon Beumen does appear to be biased in favot of Sanchez.

So, actually not worse overall than the scoring in Pedroza-Lockridge I as the neutral judge gave it to Sanchez.

I clearly remember the boxing mags. saying Panama's Rodolfo Hill was among the most corrupt judges in the game.

 

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/06...an-LaPorte-said-Wednesday-that/1259393652800/

Fighing in the opponent's back yard means little when you have the governing body on your side.

Yes, the Mexican based WBC was often biased, but, to me, the Panamanian based WBA was more egregious.

Of course, the IBF was formed in the US and turned out to be corrupt, as well.

They are are all more or less corrupt.