Is there such thing as a neutral fan...

Judges are taught to score fights on three specific criteria, if you take that into account there should be no bias. Certain judges prefer specific styles, and that usually affects their scoring, but I think for the most part (big picture), judges get it right.

 

Yeah. I'm usually pretty high, so scoring is the last thing on my mind.

 

Yes. But considering everyone will have a favorite style/form his bias will favor the fighter that exhibits it. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

Neutral fans are possible because I have been completely neutral when two fighters that I'm fans of fight one another. Mayweather vs Mosley, Cotto vs Mosley, De la Hoyle vs Trinidad.

 

In fact theres not even a 100% objective human being. Ref, judge, etc. need to be as objective as it can get, but we are all subjective, it's the way we are.

 

of course there is

 

I nearly always have somebody who id rather win, somebody to root for. Sometimes its not even the person i think its guna be, when the fight starts i just start rooting for one of them, happens in all sports i watch.

 

I think gamblers tend to be more neutral. They have to be; when there's money on the line, blind fandom costs cash. You have to be able to sit back and assess honestly why one fighter might win or lose versus another -- and once you've seen the media treadmill go round a few times, you tend to get a pretty good idea of what's smoke-and-mirrors and what's worth paying attention to. If you're only even half-smart, you only have to get stung a few times before you start learning.

I like blind fandom, though; it tends to make things more profitable at lower risk (see Mayweather / Pacquiao vs. Hatton).

That doesn't mean I don't have favourites, though; I'm still a massive fan of boxing as well as the occasional gambler, but it does mean that you learn to put that stuff to the side more easily.

I'm also old-school. I was lucky to grow up in an era where, generally speaking -- much more than today anyway -- the best fought the best; it was a point of pride to do it. That's why the current trend for "navigating a course which maximizes profit and acclaim while simultaneously minimizing risk" that both Pacquiao and Mayweather have been following doesn't appeal to me as much as it does to their hardcore fans.

The whole point of "cleaning out a divison before moving up" is that you don't know what problems are going to come up; you're at the mercy of chance and styles to a greater extent -- you have to deal with the problems presented by the environment in which you exist, instead of cherry-picking the environments that look impressive while knowing that, really, they won't present you with too many problems.

Because of this, I tend to rate "approaches" and "philosophies" more than I rate individual fighters, because any individual fighter can change their approach at any time.

 

probably not. Everyone has a favorite style and type of fighter.

 

Like most people on here i tend to root for the underdog. I learned that betting on them is not so smart though.
I try to be as impartial as i can.

 

Its great to see a countryman in there, but I recognize skills and greatness when I see it. I try to spot out the next Leonard, Duran, Hearns, or Ali. To me Floyd was the next Leonard and Pacquiao the next Duran, but it's funny how Floyd resembles more like the bad boy image Duran had and Manny the goody 2 shoes Leonard had. I still think they fall short they need to fight each other to even be compared to SRL and MDP. For lesser known fighters, I usually go with the more experienced ones. I'll go for a veteran that looked good in a losing fight vs a top rated fighter than an undefeated one who's knocked out 50 bums.

 

Interesting thread, I'm the same as you here. There is always some difference between two fighters that leads me to support one over the other, even if I think I'm neutral going in.

 

Everybody is biased in regard to everybody judging fights differently. I'd say it has less to do with the fighters, and more to do with personal preferences.

Some people score aggression higher, while another may value clean punching more than aggression. I would say my bias has more to do with what I'm looking for in a fight, than the actual fighters.

Effective/Clean punches and Ring Generalship are what I look at first personally.