Can anybody explain to me why the judges vote the way they do, because it seems to me that almost always the actual voting does not match with MErchant's and the other guy that does the HBO scorecard. Don't they have the same angle of view? Are there different approaches to scoring a fight?

Can anybody explain to me why the judges vote the way they do, because it seems to me that almost always the actual voting does not match with MErchant's and the other guy that does the HBO scorecard. Don't they have the same angle of view? Are there different approaches to scoring a fight?
The judges sit on the opposite side of the ring so the view is different. Also, everyone judges differntly. I wouldnt go to much from what Merchant and Lederman do. You should judge your ownself and decide. Merchant and HBO influnce viewers alot and I disagree with them half the time. There are some situations that are crooked. Sometimes, one judge will be way off, or it will be a big time wrong decision like in the Augustus fight but for the most part, I think it's honest.

The bottom line is that judges are no different then us. How many times have we came on here and debated about who won a fight or how close a fight was. Everyone has there own opinion and everyone judges differently. I thought that Spinks clearly out boxed Mayorga and shouldve won a easy decision, while others thought he ran and Mayorga was forcing the fight and he shouldve won. To each his own

nice dlt. it cant be said much better than that. ive heard about points in amateur boxing, it has something to do with computers i think. does anyone know how that works?

i usually agree with lederman, sturm-dlh judges=blah

no way were they gonna give away a mega fight for felix sturm. he should have just came out and laid down cause he had no chance in hell, lol :D

To add to that...Judges sometimes give the decision to the right guy, but make the fight seem alot closer than it really is. Is it that they really feel the fight was close, or is it corruption?

The points system in Amatuer boxing just wouldn't work in the professional ranks.

In amatuer you get 3 judges who all have two button's in front of them (one for each fighter). If they see a clean punch land for a fighter they press the button, if all three judges press the button at the same time within a second of each other - it's scored as a point.

The reason this wouldn't work in the professional game is because one fighter can land 3 or 4 powder puff punches that each score and the other fighter lands a solid left hook wobbling his opponent all over the ring - he's standing 4-1 down on the score cards already.

Professional boxing is prize fighting.

Amatuer boxing is a sport.

They're too different in my opinion.

Judges in boxing have been ridiculed and hated for their bias and corruption since the beginning of the sport as we know it today. The only way to fix this, would be to form an international committee to judge all professional fights, that trained and regulated boxing judges, as well as yearly evaluating each individual judges performance based on the fights they've scored to decide whether they'll be allowed to continue scoring fights, or whether they've been bought, etc. It's ****ing absurd to have promoters picking and paying refs and judges.

Just as many of my fellow boxing fans have just stated, scoring in this sport is subjective instead of objective. Many judges prefer the effective aggressor even though he might not land as many clean shots (i.e. Johnson vs. Tarver), while others will often favor the fighters that land the cleaner harder shots (i.e. Morales vs. Pacquio) This way of scoring has led to many controversial decisions that have confounded us the common fan. I heard a great explanation one day as to why the fights often seem different to us on TV than live. There was an interview with a judge in the Chavez Taylor fight who scored the fight in favor of Taylor but much closer than most of us would have thought. He told the reporter that while Taylor was always the busier fighter throughout the fight, there were several rounds that Chavez's punches were much harder and powerful than any of Taylor's flurries. For this reason He Had Taylor winning by 4 rounds going into the final stanza. Still way ahead, but not nearly the shutout many were claiming. In all, Judging is way to subjective and at times is more inconclusive than vice versa.

The simple reason for judges scoring the way they do is they don't have to answer for it.

Lederman to me is a great scorer (I disagree with him sometimes, but usually only on a round or two, he almost always gets the actual outcome correct as far as I'm concerned) and one of the reasons is he has to explain it every few rounds. He says what he saw, why he gave this round to that fighter, etc.

These judges also have underlying agendas sometimes. I will always feel that the judges in Ruiz-Golota were corrupt. 2 judges having it 9 rounds to 3 for Ruiz is crazy and that is giving ANY and EVERY thing to Ruiz that they possibly can. Why?- you ask? Because Don King knows Ruiz is not a draw AT ALL without his belt- he needs it to be a draw. Golota doesn't need a belt to be a draw.

:boxing:

Harold's scorecard is rarely right unles its a super clean very lopsided fight. And Merchant well lets just say he will give rounds based on effort, no im not kidding he has said it himself.

It's true... But if you turn the volume off then your own scoring won't get affected by bias commentators!

Harold's scorecard is rarely right unles its a super clean very lopsided fight. And Merchant well lets just say he will give rounds based on effort, no im not kidding he has said it himself.


your joking right

Yeah, you got to be kidding. Lederman is not perfect, but he is right most of the time. And I almost ALWAYS agree with his final decision- even if he's off by a round or 2.

Brad Wright, the commisioner of michigans professional boxing, has been trying to get the state to bring in people who would critique and evaluate the judges in the state. The good ones would be given the big fights, the better ones would get the club shows and the ****ty ones would get put to the curb for the garbage collector to pick up. As Brad said, we need these judges to be held accountable for their actions. And I could not agree more. However, the state does not seem willing to shell out any money for the sport. What little we do get to run things is helpfull, I guess. So the problem is how to fund these official official/judge analysers. Brad said that he has something already in the works, next time I talk with him I'll get you an update.............. :boxing: Rockin'

Is it me or has lately Harold been getting worse at scoring fights? I think he gives too many rounds the the fan favorite that are close.

I've heard that there are what you could say are different approaches to scoring a fight, couln't Congress do something to regulate it like baseball? or is there an organization that already does? WOuld increasing the quantity of judges, lets say 5 fix the problem?