There have always been bad decisions in boxing. However, in recent years it has become more and more common. Frankly the number of controversial decisions and robberies is damn near getting close to 50%. Many on the forum, LufCrazy notably, don't drawn their analysis and rankings of fighters from official decisions but instead from how a fighter ACTUALLY performed. Regardless of incompetence or bribery. How would this affect boxing in general...if all fights were ranked primarily on Newspaper Decisions? How would this affect individuals records and the public image of boxing?
the idea of ranking a guy lower because 2 men at ringside see it differently to me is bizarre. decisions based on consensus would be great. Probably need a stricter system for title fights but by and large I think it would be much fairer.
this is how many of us view fights anyway. i trust the consensus of newspaper decisions and fans far more than i do the judges to be honest. there is less bias, less corruption and probably no more significant incompetence in the public's view of fights than 3 judges
Yes, I'd definitely be on board for that. I already ignore decisions where blatant corruption and incompetence were to play, nor do I pay any attention to bogus title fights for bogus belts. So long as there is a big enough body of observers agreeing on the same thing, I think it's a good idea.
'Newspaper decisions' are just as corruptable as judges decisions. Why not just have NO DECISION, so it's a draw if it reaches the final bell. Or finish fights, keep going until someone quits or is KO'd. There would still be a storm of controversy over premature stoppages etc.
Because that would penalise fighters with skill but little knockout power, or reward tough journeymen who can last the distance against vastly more superior opposition. A fighter like Andre Ward would only have 14 wins in 26 bouts. God knows how many wins Malignaggi would have. Second option would not be televisable. Companies need a firm estimate of the how much time a fight might take. Would also turn a lot of fights back into wrestling matches where both opponents throw one or two punches per round to conserve energy and use the rest of the time stalling to run out the clock. Any decision making process if prone to human error or corruption by its very nature. The more people involved in that process, however, with less direct ability to be influenced, the less that possibility.
Well, maybe it should be done by a live tele-vote. Like the X-factor or whatever. Get thousands or millions of viewers to decide.
honestly, i'm really happy with how this conversation has gone. what if there were no official decisions (or we simply didn't recognize those decisions) and everything that wasn't a KO was counted as a NC then the consensus of newspapers and fans determined how fights were recorded? in a ridiculous close fight, pick who you like. but, fights would be recognized in general for who ACTUALLY won, not who had the most convincing promoter
maybe we could have a newspaper decision thread, where after every major fight, the posters vote for who won and we kept an objective, non biased record of fights
