American Judges as useless as any other country's.

[.Mik.]

It gets a little tiresome always seeing people pick up on the scorecards anytime a fight is fought in the UK or Europe (not that the judging is any better there, but frankly, its not much worth either), holding up America as a benchmark of judging quality.

Froch was fortunate that the fight was ended inside the distance yesterday. Not because he would've been screwed on the judge cards (because in my opinion he was behind on the cards, but only by one round or so). But the discrepancy on the judgecards was ridiculous. There was 12 point difference between one of the judges and the other two. All of the ringside scorecards and the press row scorecards had the fight close, everyone could see that it was a relatively close fight with both knock downs included, with a round of two in it each way at most. Yet how did EACH of the three judges have a 6 point difference on their scorecards?

They need to get judges put back into training, cos almost every fight that goes to a decision, wherever it is in the world, is a contentious decision at the moment where the judges score it so vastly different to every other unbiased judge in the arena and everyone else in the home and TV audience that it is ridiculous.

[jreckoning]

It gets a little tiresome always seeing people pick up on the scorecards anytime a fight is fought in the UK or Europe (not that the judging is any better there, but frankly, its not much worth either), holding up America as a benchmark of judging quality.

Froch was fortunate that the fight was ended inside the distance yesterday. Not because he would've been screwed on the judge cards (because in my opinion he was behind on the cards, but only by one round or so). But the discrepancy on the judgecards was ridiculous. There was 12 point difference between one of the judges and the other two. All of the ringside scorecards and the press row scorecards had the fight close, everyone could see that it was a relatively close fight with both knock downs included, with a round of two in it each way at most. Yet how did EACH of the three judges have a 6 point difference on their scorecards?

They need to get judges put back into training, cos almost every fight that goes to a decision, wherever it is in the world, is a contentious decision at the moment where the judges score it so vastly different to every other unbiased judge in the arena and everyone else in the home and TV audience that it is ridiculous.

Nobuaki Uratani is from Japan.
Jack Woodburn is Canadian.

[.Mik.]

Let me clarify this, most other countries dont just use judges from their own country either.

"The judging IN America is no better than the judging in any other country".

[J.B.moneY.]

It gets a little tiresome always seeing people pick up on the scorecards anytime a fight is fought in the UK or Europe (not that the judging is any better there, but frankly, its not much worth either), holding up America as a benchmark of judging quality.

Froch was fortunate that the fight was ended inside the distance yesterday. Not because he would've been screwed on the judge cards (because in my opinion he was behind on the cards, but only by one round or so). But the discrepancy on the judgecards was ridiculous. There was 12 point difference between one of the judges and the other two. All of the ringside scorecards and the press row scorecards had the fight close, everyone could see that it was a relatively close fight with both knock downs included, with a round of two in it each way at most. Yet how did EACH of the three judges have a 6 point difference on their scorecards?

They need to get judges put back into training, cos almost every fight that goes to a decision, wherever it is in the world, is a contentious decision at the moment where the judges score it so vastly different to every other unbiased judge in the arena and everyone else in the home and TV audience that it is ridiculous.

one of the best post i've read on here today....well put....i do think some judges have to many reps...like in vegas certain judges have a reputation of going against defensive fighters.....julie lederman being one

[.Mik.]

Yeah, that needs to be stopped. There need to stop being 'Hometown judges' there need to stop being judges who judge favourably to a certain style and there needs to stop being this idea of "You've got to go and take the belt off the champion". There are all accepted by boxing fans as though these corruptions (and that what they are) are somehow 'fair'. Each fight should be judged consistently no matter where you fight and what conditions you fight in. If you perform better in the round and win more of the rounds, you win the fight, title holder or not, hometown favourite or not, more favourable style of fighter or not.

[The Hammer]

It gets a little tiresome always seeing people pick up on the scorecards anytime a fight is fought in the UK or Europe (not that the judging is any better there, but frankly, its not much worth either), holding up America as a benchmark of judging quality.

Great post.

You are absolutely right, some of the worst judging I've ever seen in in the US (Holyfield-Lewis I, Briggs-Foreman, Sturm-De La Hoya, Meehan-Brewster, etc.)

And Al Bernstein will always give the close rounds to the American fighter on his scorecard I've noticed. This sometimes can be misleading. Most UK commentators tend to be less biased.

[jreckoning]

The problem is people are human and not immune to bias and even corruption.

And people see things differently, they may be unknowingly influenced by a cheering crowd or ineffective aggression, etc.

Perhaps if they had a review board of judges, like they do with other sports, only the best would get the best title fights.

[.Mik.]

Yeah, they are bad as anyone, but the point is really that EVERYONE is bad. I cant remember the last time I saw a full weekend of boxing anywhere in the world where there wasnt some really ****ty judging present. If that had gone to the cards yesterday, Taylor would've deservedly won, but there would've been threads here from casual fans wondering why the **** there was such a ridiculous discrepancy between what they saw and what was judged and even moreso why three people supposedly judged the same fight using the same criteria and yet came to such ridiculously different conclusions. I think that the worldwide bad judging is what has really started to damage this sport to casual fans. What they see on the screen bears little resemblance to what the judges deem the result of the match to be...so what is the point in watching it?

[J.B.moneY.]

yea i think its fact some judges have been payed off and others have pressure to rule a certain way because of the implications of future fights......I think personally this is the worse quality of the judges of today's boxing.

[.Mik.]

The problem is people are human and not immune to bias and even corruption.

And people see things differently, they may be unknowingly influenced by a cheering crowd or ineffective aggression, etc.

Perhaps if they had a review board of judges, like they do with other sports, only the best would get the best title fights.

Thats what needs to be done. Things need to be put in place to stop it from happening. Whether its not having the judges in the arena or having reviews of judging, or allowing the judges to have a little more time after the fight to reflect, or better training of judges to allow consistency, more judges or allowing the judges to come to a mutual decision. SOMETHING needs to be done to the system that EVERYONE has known for decades is too prone to corruption and inconsistency and yet for whatever reason everyone simply tolerates. I mean, say what you want about Calzaghe, but he never went to the states because he feared being screwed by American judges. Thus we were robbed on many great fights for something that would appear to be fixable. Same for American fighters not wanting to come to Europe to fight.