Official result or your own scores ? Which takes precedent when ranking boxers ?

This thread is inspired by posts in another thread where posters take for granted that their take on a fight is more significant than the official scorecards.

Specifically, this poster had JMM winning all three meetings with Pac. But I've seen similar posts where posters count BHop's 'win' over Calzaghe or Hagler's 'win' over Leonard, in determining their rankings.

I had Witherspoon over Holmes and Homles over Spinks in their second meeting, but I would yield to the official record when considering the relative standings.

Obviously, there are some bouts where there is near universal agreement that the judges got it wrong. Lewis/Holyfield 1, Oscar/Tito etc.

But in close, controversial bouts, which result should count for more, the official score, or your own take ?

 

In a close fight that could go either way I give the official decision the benefit of the doubt, when compiling 'great' rankings I dish out kudos to fighters dependent on what they displayed in the matchup.

 

I treat my scores as gospel when deciding upon where i'm ranking a fighter.

 

this is exactly how i feel. which is why the pac-jmm fights should be judged on how they did in those fights, regardless of who you thought won. i don't think that much less of jmm because he officially lost 2/3...he displayed all time great skills in each.

 

this is a good topic. i agree with this ^

 

I go with who I thought won the fight. They're my rankings, after all.

 

Yep, my list, my scores.

 

Unless the fight is proven to be crocked, who am I to suggest my judgement is better than a professional judge?

 

In which case, who are you to determine a fighter's place in boxing history?

 

Official scores are the bedrock of the sport. Those who use their own interpretation of events, especially as scored from video, are supreme egotists.

 

Totally agree with you and bujia.

If i'm gonna make my own lists i'm gonna do so based as much on my own opinion as possible.

 

If it was a close fight that could have gone either way than I go with the official verdict.
(Too many fights to mention)
If I felt that one boxer clearly won on points but with a lot of close rounds that could go one way or the other, than the stock of the official loser goes up. The official winner dose not move up or down. (Marquez/Pacquiao III.)
If I fell it was clearly a robbery than the ranking of the official loser goes up and the official winner's ranking goes down. (Whitaker/Chavez. Which was in this case a draw.)

 

Depends. Even though Felix Trinidad got the decision over DLH I give him no credit for "beating" Oscar. Nor do I give Chavez credit for "beating" Randall (second fight). Nor Ramirez for the Whitaker travesty. Carlos Zarate clearly won over Lupe Pintor and thus I give Lupe not one speck of credit for the gift he was given. Ditto Gomez over Lockridge, McAuliffe over Griffo or any other fight where the judges were obviously bought and paid for.

While we're on the subject, does anyone here give Park Si Hun credit for "beating" Roy Jones in Seoul?

 

Course not, Roy was obviously the winner there.

 

So it's better to score from ringside (or worse, the stands), through the ropes, from one angle (an upward one at that) than it is to score on HDTV with a clear viewing and multiple angles to catch all the action close up?

I've never understood this line of thinking. Just seems like the kind of thing braggarts like to use when filling everyone in on an anecdote of their experience at the fight. As if that makes them more authentic as fans, and as such their opinion should hold more merit. It's pure horse ****.