Anyway what.....? Let me break it down for you. Lets say the styles of two particular fighters leads them to end up brawling in a corner (it happens). Its not going to be in the same corner for 12 rounds is it smart ass? Round 1, they end up in the red corner, judge 1 & 2 have a great view, judge 3 can only see the back of the guy pushing forward (hence, he cannot see the uppercuts etc of the guy with his back in the corner). Round 2, they end up in the blue corner, Judge 2 & 3 have great view, this time judge 1 can only see the back of the guy pushing forward (hence, he cannot see the uppercuts etc of the guy with his back in the corner). There are four corners . 4 potential places were action will take place, with only two of the judges possibly seeing action from both fighters at any given time, in any combo. The possiblity of divergent scorecards explained. Next
I was, and i know what ben means. Tbh, i agree with the way he scores fights. But even in his explanation, he is a little open ended with his explanation. That can be explained by saying " well, scoring is a subjective thing". I think if their was to be an overhaul or a judges seminar etc....the aim should be to eliminate as much subjectivity from the equation as possible and have a clear set of criteria that everyone follows. Its almost farcical to have a situation where one judge treats a feeler jab the same as a left hook on the chin when another judge doesnt. Im trying to think of the judge who told me that a tap is rewarded the same way a hard punch is...(geez, im picturing him, he's a popular judge, little guy, ex fighter, lives quite locally actually...revesby nsw). The issue with rewarding power punching over light punching is that it immediately disadvantages the guy who isnt blessed with power. But it all comes back to uniformity in the the judging ranksvas far as the teaching is concerned.
I was going to say judges, or in particular that Phil Austin **** generally what he look's for on fight night is a mirror!
I agree with everything you have written (and I have to say that I have been agreeing with a lot of what you have written recently which is making me a little uncomfortable lol). ALL judges should be on the same page, it is owed to the fighters. Sometimes when I hear what "criteria" somebody uses it makes me shuddder....
I was going to use that one! Not saying all rounds have to be fought in the corner.. even 3 or 4 would potentially give different scores. Then you have the other thing you mention (which i agree on) that when they are in the middle of the ring, that judges use differing criteria too. I still cant understand the pac v marquez first fight scoring.
Actually it wasnt, but it obviously had a lot of close quarters action. And even if we agreed that fight is an example of how judge view impairment can explain different score cards: - why is fenech/ nelson 1 on most peoples list as the biggest robbery in boxing. Apparently it has a perfectly reasonable explanation. Judges view at ringside. - if thats the only example, does that mean judge positioning at ringside can be used as an excuse for all score cards that are considered controversial? Its not really a compelling argument when only one 12 rd fight is listed as the example. But as i said, even that fight doesnt fit tne description of a 12 rounder fought in 4 corners. I doubt any fight does, im yet to see one. My point is that yes, judges have their vision impaired. Over 12 rds, its barely worth mentioning in explaining lop sided score cards. And phil....you are looking swuave....
As I said, been a long time since I saw it but I had the feeling that a lot of the fight was fought out in corners... Biggest robbery still that comes to mind...