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

never ending game, it never cease to exist, only the players change, nahm sayin

 

Which is proving my point. Doctors, like Boxing Judges are human not perfect, and will make mistakes. But I will always take the opinion of trained professional over the enthusiastic amateur, and most of the time, that will prove to be the right call.

 

A Doctor speaks to you:

"PowerPuncher, I know you believe there is nothing wrong, but I believe you have an illness that will kill you within a week. But if you take this pill, you will be perfectly alright in a couple of days."

Are you saying, because it has been shown some Doctors have taken bribes, you will ignore the opinion of the Doctor?

 

Well my friend, I'm not going to compare a human with an understanding of a sport and how to judge a sport, professional or not, to somebody who has a degree and or a doctorate in one of the few true professions there is. I think you're being silly.

I've studied boxing all my life and I'm pretty sure I can judge a fight as well as the next guy, whether he has a job in doing so or not.

 

TBooze a mad troll

go through life viewing doctors as boxinf judges, good luck mate. You're only gunna reply with some long winded patronising madness, so spare me it if you don't mind and I'll leave the thread now. I think you're being an idiot mate, not always, but here and now, yes.

 

I have studied and a love of Politics nearly all my life, but do I have what it takes to be an MP? Probably not. I have been watching boxing since I was five, and I too think I can judge a fight as well as the next guy. But I never have been formally trained as a judge, so on weighing up the evidence, it could be suggest my opinion should not carry the weight of the professional judge.

 

I have thought that draws should be more common and respected results from close fights, it would not only affect at the time but impacts on a legacy as well.
Apart from obvious travesties i just trust the judges, they are professional innit.

 

I don't think Booze understands much about how someone might become a judge for boxing.

Comparing them to doctors

 

:good

 

1. I'd never take an opinion of a doctor without getting a second opinion, getting a specialists opinions and doing my own research. Just because a doctor doesn't make them right

2. Doctors are often overly influenced by drug companies with their own agendas

3. A fight judge has less expertise than me not more, a doctor on most medical topics has more expertise than myself

4. How often do doctors take bribes? Surely a striking off offence and if they did it'd be from a drugs company looking to push a drug

5. If a doctor called me powerpuncher I'd question the rest of what he said quite critically

6. I have gone against doctors orders and been healthier as a result

 

Which is what I suggested

What evidence have you got to back it up? I can find records of judges opinions of fights, via their fight cards, which shows if nothing else they were sitting ringside and judging the fight as of the moment. But what have you got that, that makes you a bigger expert?

Like a boxing judge. Taking a bribe in this era is at least a striking off offence. Of course some Judges like some Doctors may have influence that means they continue.

 

Booze you live in your world where official judges are gospel you do that.

Just be aware that you look like a troll in doing so.

 

I try and respect authority, and I do not take them as gospel, but they are an important starting point to gain evidence of a fight. Sure there have been some terrible decisions, and I am not naive enough to believe there is not corruption involved on occasion.

But for the fraction of fights where decisions are considered as poor, just think for one moment about all the fights that have had a decision made by a judge, that have not caused a negative opinion, by a neutral. There are massively more percentage wise, of these fights.

Yes, corruption should be exposed, but do not think that these corrupt decisions are anything other than a minuscule amount of the decisions that have been 'handed down' by judges.

 

it's a tricky position and slippery slope, in whichever way you stand on judges' decisions. personally i only ignore the ridiculous and blantantly corrupt ones, always factor in the performances regardless of decision and treat the official resume as their real resume except for those rare cases.

for me, the modern advantage of film is also a disadvantage for older fighters who may also have been "robbed" but we have no film to prove it. we can't say for certain that walcott deserved the first decision against louis, if we had film though maybe we could. Maybe fitz reallly DID land a low blow against sharkey and the dq should stand.

but we'll never know. if we're disregarding modern decisions that we disagree with what about decisions from the past that we don't have film of?

 

Your post has literally no relevance.

If you watch a fight and think one man wins you shouldn't then change your mind because 3 men at ringside disagree with you.