Strange Boxing Referee's decisions: Corruption? or just home town influence?

sxt

When you have watched a boxing fight and you believe that the Judges decisions were way off, do you think it is down to genuine corruption or just home ground advantage when people emphatically cheering for the home fighter will subconsciously influence the judges scoring etc?

walshb

sxt wrote: »

When you have watched a boxing fight and you believe that the referee's decisions were way off, do you think it is down to genuine corruption or just home ground advantage when people emphatically cheering for the home fighter will subconsciously influence the judges scoring etc?

Referee soring, or judges scoring, or both instances?

I think it depends on how much a robbery you rate the bout. Thing I find is that even with closely fought fights and rounds, some folks cry robbery. Definitely I would say a home crowd could influene a judge/referee, to what degree? Who knows. It applies to other sports too.

cowzerp

Ref's appeasing the home fans can make a big difference to there decisions but also if there been employed by Golden boy for example and are reffing a fight with a Golden boy fighter in it then they might be thinking i won't get hired again.

slapbangwallop

Kelly v Maludrottu sticks out in my mind as a right stinker!

tryingmybestt

fenech v nelson 1 was a robbery

sxt

walshb wrote: »

Referee soring, or judges scoring, or both instances?

.

Yeah sorry, was referring to Judges scoring in Pro fights more so, expecially those bizzare scoring results where two Judges see one fighter winning by 3 -4 rounds and the other judge sees the other figher winning by 3-4 rounds

I guess It could be down to a flawed judging system as well

walshb

sxt wrote: »

Yeah sorry, was referring to Judges scoring in Pro fights more so, expecially those bizzare scoring results where two Judges see one fighter winning by 3 -4 rounds and the other judge sees the other figher winning by 3-4 rounds

I guess It could be down to a flawed judging system as well

But, I have said this many times IF the rds are very very close, I see no problem at all with two different results for these kind of rounds

I see no issue with even 120-108 either way. When rds are close, and very competitive, then to me I see no issue with different scores.

barney4001

I remember mcguigan fighting charm chituele at the kings hall,i like a few others around me that night thought mcguigan was beaten,but barney wilson stopped fight in last round why i do not know chituele was not in any trouble that we could see

walshb

barney4001 wrote: »

I remember mcguigan fighting charm chituele at the kings hall,i like a few others around me that night thought mcguigan was beaten,but barney wilson stopped fight in last round why i do not know chituele was not in any trouble that we could see

Interesting. Never heard that.

boxer.fan

Judging is a subjective task, thats why there are three judges. As said before there can be no argument for a judge awarding rounds either way in a fight that is close. The judges / referee have the best view in the house. Analyzing tapes afterwards does not do a fight justice either. Very often technique & effectiveness can get lost in the videotape, which may be enough to make you think a fighter was robbed.

I think spectators can get sucked into an atmosphere at times and only watch what their favoured fighter is doing, and subsequently feel they are doing better than they actually are.

walshb

Does anyone see anyhing wrong with a score 120-108 where every rd was quite close? 120-108 either way.

I would think it unfair that IF a judge is judging a real close fight, and he notices that the first 5 rds he gave to fighter A, and then he thinks, well, I have to give some rds to fighter B if "some are close." I bet that does happen, because he gets criticised if he has it a "landslide" for one man. But, really, it's only a landslide score wise. It is not a landslide action wise or competitiveness wise.

The 118-110 score in Hagler-Leonard was derided. Yet, many thought that Ray won, AND many thought that many rds were so close. So, what is so wrong with the score?

In a nutshell: Why in a very close fight every rd, does a judge's score have to be close? That to me never mades sense.

barney4001

Home town/country decisions always seem to favour the local as in McCLOSKEY V PRESCOTT

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Does anyone see anyhing wrong with a score 120-108 where every rd was quite close? 120-108 either way.

I hear ya, this is where a judge may give his preferred style or fighter the nod subconsciouscly in close rounds-even in the amateurs in the stadium its noticeable that the well known boxers pick up points easier than the not so well known as the judge can only truly focus on 1 boxer at a time and naturally it will be the 1 he knows well.

barney4001

cowzerp wrote: »

I hear ya, this is where a judge may give his preferred style or fighter the nod subconsciouscly in close rounds-even in the amateurs in the stadium its noticeable that the well known boxers pick up points easier than the not so well known as the judge can only truly focus on 1 boxer at a time and naturally it will be the 1 he knows well.

I can see your point there very well and id be inclined to agree with you

walshb

Never really thought the ref scoring a fight was a good idea. I mean he has other things to be looking for and watching besides also trying to score the fight.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Never really thought the ref scoring a fight was a good idea. I mean he has other things to be looking for and watching besides also trying to score the fight.

I've reffed a few MMA and White collar Boxing matches and it's very hard to watch the fight aswell as keep it all within the rules and try to keep score.

once you don't have crooked judges it should not be a problem anyway.