This is not about what judge did the worst but rather what 2 judges had the widest disparity between their cards? Getting ready to watch Chionoi vs Torres and the result is wide! Fortunately it did not go to the cards! Arthur Mercante 116-107 Torres (9 pts) Judge 2 (not named) 115-111 Chionoi (4 pts) 13 pt swing between their cards! anybody know of 2 judges who were farther apart on the same fight?
Weird looks like boxrec has an error lol! They list Mercante as scoring 116-107 9pts But in the comments Mercante says he had it 7-4-2 which is only a 7 pt swing not 13 as they post at the top of the page. https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Chartchai_Chionoi_vs._Efren_Torres_(1st_meeting)
When Lionel Rose split decisioned Alan Rudkin over 15 rounds, one judge gave the Australian EVERY round with a score of 75-60... while another judge had it 70-69 for Rudkin. A swing of 16 points!
In the first fight - a 10 rounder - between Emile Griffith and Gaspar Ortega, one judge had it 8-1-1 for Griffith and another had it 8-1-1 for Ortega. Griffith wins the split decision but those two judges had a 14 point disparity in a 10 rounder. But the wildest I found was the first fight between Barney Ross and Jimmy McLarnin when Ross won the title over 15. One judge had Ross 13-1 while another had McLarnin 9-1 for a 20 point disparity. Wow!
A slight correction for the Rose v. Rudkin fight. Judge Mitchell did not score all 15 rounds for Rose. Round 13. was drawn 5-5, and round 11 was scored 5-3 Rose. In a full page article in Boxing News Mitchell explaines his scorecard and says that he is 100% right!!
The vote for Ortega was the referee Harry Ebbetts ,and it was booed, if you look his maths up in Box Rec he turned in several cards at odds with his fellow scorers.
Yes and it is fun to see that the ring announcer looks over to Ebbetts with a "Do you really mean this" expression on his face before announcing the score. You can see Ebbetts nod to show that his card is correct.
I remember this and thinking WTF! Then discovered that Bob Martin scored it on the 5 point system until someone told him he scored it wrong, that they were using the 10 point system. So Martin just doubled his scores, which is why every round was like a 10-8 round. Hope Martin wasn't an accountant on the side. I might question his work.
Thanks guy. Way to steal my thoughts as well as what would've been my post. Moving on. Whether true or not I don't know, but I did very recently read something that is in no way whatsoever a certainty, and the fact that I am thinking it was a comment left on a youtube video of that fight demonstrates the likelihood of this being the equivalent of a boxing urban legend. The "rumour" was that Martin somehow would've forgotten he was to be using the 10 point must for the scoring and instead was using the older 5 point. So when this would've supposedly been recognized, the officials just doubled his scores, not realizing, or caring, or both, or none of the above, that rounds scored as 5-4 became 10-8 once they were doubled and therefore is the reason for the giant discrepancy. Again, sounds like something that would be too ridiculous to be true, even for boxing, land of all strange oddities
Take a look at round 11 and see if you think it was a 5-3 round. Mitchell was the correspondent for the Ring and spent most of his report trying to justify his scorecard. I think from memory Referee Vic Patrick had a couple or more 5-3 rounds for Rose, I don't know where he got them from. His card was 70-63 Rose
