How come in very close fights and especially BIG fights..how come the refs opinion is never taken into account? He is the man that sees every action in the ring while the regular judges have only a side vantage point..I'm pretty sure in close decisions and a few robbery's the ref probably wanted to scream or at least voice is opinion cuz the ref must have a mental scorecard on who actually wins these fights...why is the main man viewing the action totally ruled out when making these decisions? Why isn't he allowed to have a scorecard that's taken into account?
Because that's not his job? Who's to say the ref isn't in on the robbery? Why not get the TV people involved as well who can watch replays from every possible angle?
I know its not his job...but why isn't it? He sees things that the judges don't...so why isn't is opinion viable?
He has a huge amount to concentrate on. You know how when you are scoring fights you sometimes start to think about your girlfriends tits or who the Dolphins should play at stop-quarter-liner or whatever? Well imagine that, plus scoring, plus trying to control two 19 stone men who want to kill each other. Ref has more than enough on.
I agree with you that something should be done about bad decisions in boxing but I don't see how having the ref give input will remove the controversy. Refs are sometimes clearly favouring one of the fighters so it isn't going to help the wider issue of corruption in the sport. Having a fourth "judge" isn't going to eliminate controversy, even if they're honest. Consider a fight scored a split draw 117-111, 114-114, 111-117 with such disparate scores that at least two judges are wrong. If the ref thinks one of the fighters won, that becomes even more controversial.
Conflict of interest. If you can make the case the ref was paying enough attention to who was winning to score it, then a fighter can make the case he wasn't paying enough attention to how he was being cheated by shady tactics etc, and how the ref should've took points or more points etc.
They stopped having referees score fights because I think they figure he already has a tough enough job as it is, and should just focus on reffing.
Because he can't focus on scoring the fight on and controlling it at the same time. He'd probably have the worst scorecard.
Ref's already effect fights enough. Ref's already catch a boatload of heat when they screw up.Can you imagine the reaction if a ref screws up a fight AND scores it wrong?
They need a judge that views the fight from above the ring. I'm serious. A judge with a fly's eye view will probably observe more of the overall action than having judges on the floor.
I agree with your point, but a bird's view is almost impossible. I agree that the judges position is not ideal and that a view on ring level would be better.
The refs got enough to do, and they often do it badly missing fouls, making the wrong calls. You want a guy like Joe Cortez to vote on who wins too? Besides, the refs actions effect who wins often enough just by how they play favorites.