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

and that ends the thread

 

I would agree that if you watch a fight ringside, as a neutral, in the moment (live). Your decision, if you know what are doing, has at least a bit of relevance.

Otherwise, you need to put a * against any conclusion you have come too.

 

Jorodz, as I said an official decision is like an interim one for me; unless I find enough evidence to go against the decision (fight reports, video etc) then I won't do.

I have no problem with say addie watching the spinks-holmes rematch and thinking michael won it hence giving him credit.

I do have a problem with people watching that fight, thinking larry won it and then saying "well spinks did beat larry twice..." it doesn't wash with me.

The beauty of this sport is the combination of subjection, drama, skills and ferocity it brings. One man's masterclass is another man's brawl and that's perfectly fine as long as you stay true to how you see it.

I thought, for example, that pea beat oscar so why in the hell would I credit oscar for what I perceive to be a losing performance in that instance? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

ahh, i see what you're saying now. the distinction is not taking the judges decision as gospel when your eyes tell you different. if you have a strong opinion on who won and the judges go the other way, you give credit where it's due.

i just worry about resumes becoming meaningless and everyone having their own records for every fighter based on what they believe happened. with that, there's no objective way to judge fighters rankings because everyone will have their own opinions on each fight. actually that's not the worst thing in the world:think

 

Not the worst thing at all and I certainly applaud the notion that we make our own mind up.

For example I might like the song "smells like teen spirit" should I change my opinion just because critics don't like it and it doesn't make number 1 in a certain country?

Subjective sports demand a subjective audience and if I think kid gavilan, based on reports and footage, never lost as a prime ww except to ray robinson in the rematch then i'm bloody well gonna rank kid gavilan very highly and perhaps higher than someone might do win is willing to accept every loss at face value.

 

in the end, i agree. however every decision needs to be justified and based on fact. most of the classic is more than capable of backing up their ledgers and discussing why someone won and someone didn't. if we look at it that way, it could be an interesting change from the norm.

 

Exactly and that's the beauty of the whole thing, justifying why I believe gavilan is a greater ww than leonard etc dragging out fight report of the the robberies he suffered.

At one time I just looked for hints of misdemeanor but i'm much more thorough now which is why I dropped my prior claims that hopkins deserved a draw in his debut.

Ofcourse it's much easier in with filmed fights because I can give a scorecard with ease.

For unfilmed fights it's about gaining as much as consensus opinion as possible and making your mind up i.e. The greb v tunney rematch I treat as a greb victory based on every report I read; likewise I treat the draw as a tunney victory.

 

well said :good bringing it back to the most salient example of the moment, i have pac winning the first two fights with marquez by a single point. does my score detract from marquez's performance? no. does the fact that a number of people on the forum have marquez winning the first two detract from what pac did? no. the scores almost seem arbitrary in a sense because it's what the fighters did that matters. and it's only their performance we should rank, not people's opinions on those performances

 

Exactly the fights increased both guys legacy imo.

I have the same with pac winning the first two by virtue of his knockdowns. The rubber I had a draw.

I'm well aware teeto has marquez winning the third and I respect that opinion much more than if he turned round and said "i had marquez winning but i'm gonna credit pac because he got the decision from the judges"

 

the conceit that some display in thinking their amateur opinion somehow trumps the objective judgement of three professionals is appalling.

furthermore, the notion that viewing the fight on the idiot box is preferable to live is moronic. a fight is a performance between two performers to be viewed in real time, as it has been done for centuries, not to be replayed ad nauseum from 20 angles, but to absorbed from one. it is a narrative meant to unfold once and in a single, seamless continuum wherin the tricks of the trade involve layers of pace and even deception. television has ruined the narrative. it is a pornographer's perspective, obscene in its saturation of information and lack of any perspective.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, when giving my opinion on the ranking of a fighter, I like to use my opinions on the fights that fighter had.

 

i don't need to be there live to know that whitaker beat chavez. the judges were wrong

 

viewed as 12 separate fights, each weighted the same as the other 11, it is plausible that it was close to a draw. whitaker's rounds were far more emphatic. however, with the 10 point must system, that is not reflected.

much like papal infallibility, i believe in every decision ever rendered in the history of the sport. it is the basis for the narrative that is boxing, whether sometimes distasteful or not. you either believe in every decision ever rendered or none at all.

 

I agree that we need the "official" scores as the history of the sport and as you said, narrative. full stop

but in ranking fighters, i will always rank whitaker based off the winning performance against chavez. the fight could officially be ruled anything but the "draw" should detract from the fact that whitaker won and should be rated historically based on that

 

What a crock of bull****; the judges being wrong with pea v chavez is in no way connected to the judges being correct with crolla v limond.

How about lara v williams? Were the judges right then?