I think the problem with boxing is that judging fights is very subjective. Some people value aggression over clean punches. Some people don't even count body punching. Some people value total damage over total punches landed. Here is my question what do you use when judging a fight? Lets say two guys are fighting, one is incredibly strong and the other is fast but has little power. Lets say the stronger one lands less punches but does more damage while the faster one lands many more but because of his lack of power he does little damage. Who should win? you will have many saying the faster one should win because he landed more. Others will say the stronger one should win because he did much more damage. And so because of this difference of views people will always disagree about the winner in certain fights. Now in terms of the fight between marquez and bradley i think bradley won the fight.
Its because the game is crooked, there is no way to justify that Chavez 108-102 card for example as subjective.
I definitely agree with you in that particular fight. But I am talking about those close fights that can go either way depending on what you value. Off course people will look for a reason to give rounds to their favorite boxer.
Like I said in another post, there should be another way for scoring fights and it should have been changed a long time ago. I have no problem with some controverse now and then, but the problem is that it happens in a huge percentage of the fights and almost always in favor of the home/featured fighter. And that's when it becomes clear we're talking about corruption and/or favoritism instead of incompetence. It's much too easy for judges to come up with bogus scores due to the nature of the 10 point must system (close round scores the same as a very clear round) and because they almost never are being held accounted for their scorecards, as bad as some are. And it never gets overruled, sometimes not even when they know a guy was cheating at the time. I love the sport, but I hate the politics and I hate most of the officials (with the exception of a few good and intense ones).
Most (even jury-) sports have much less controversy as Boxing. I can't think of a single sport right now that's worse or even close to it at the moment. It never lacks controversy, but the quantity is the problem. Please name a sport that comes close to it. Scores are way over the place and cheaters aren't even punished properly.
If you think pro sport is anything other than big business you're totally naive. When a particular sport comes across to you as 'non controversial', that's purely because of slick marketing. And performance enhancing drugs aren't 'cheating' if everyone's doing it.
It's a controversial sport, but it is a sport, not JUST a business, having judges who can actually judge is not too much to ask for
The problem is most of the judges have never fought in there life. If you've never been hit to the body how would you know how devastating it could be. I still remember MMA judge Cecil Peoples saying leg kicks don't win fights...yeah right lol, and he used to train point karate but shows his own bias against what he is unfamiliar with.
In most sports it isn't even possible to be as controversial as boxing. If Bolt runs the 100 in 9.7 and another guy runs 9.8 Bolt wins. If in boxing Pac wins 8 and Bradley 4, Bradley wins. And if "everybody" cheats, it's still cheating. If only one guy doesn't, he should be champ and the others be DQ'd
