Should the state athletic commissions reserve the right to overturn a bogus decision?

[kenso]

What do you guys think? If a high profile decision goes really wrong, should the state athletic commissions have an option to overturn decisions? This would only be in cases where there was a large public outcry. E.g. Williams - Lara, Pacquiao - Bradley, Lewis - Holyfield. If not the state athletic commission, then who?

Side question: Should Harold Ledderman score every HBO fight?


My personal opinion:
I DON'T think this option should be given to the sanctioning bodies, they are known for their eternal corruption and idiocy. They have their own agenda which is completely separate from the good of the sport. However, if it could be set up right - the State athletic commission could elect a constant "judge board" to reevaluate these bogus decisions.

I also personally believe that Harold Ledderman is a great judge and that a lot less controversial decisions would be given out if he scored every HBO fight. He isn't afraid to score the fight for a fighter he doesn't like.

[Primera]

I wouldn't mind it but I think it'd just turn into a popularity contest.

I don't have much to say about Harold Lederman other than his Pacquiao-Bradley scorecard was extremely biased and equally horrible. No way it was even close to 11-1 or 10-2 like he gave it. He must have been listening to Lampley call the fight to produce a scorecard that terrible.

[tredh]

No because state commissions can be just as corrupt as the sanctioning bodies are. A wrong decision is messed up but the fighters just have to deal with it and move on. If anything they should only be allowed to change the fight to a no contest and not actually change a fighter from losing to winning and the winner to the loser.

By the way Ledderman is a terrible f#cking judge!!! I don't see how you came up with Ledderman being a good judge. That dude is 99.9% of the time a HBO homer and besides that he along with a lot judges don't score fights by the rules of boxing. There are 4 rules to score a fight by and most people don't follow those rules when scoring a fight and then wonder why certain fighters win fights.

[Bushbaby]

I just love how ts completely left out Pac-Marquez,lol!!

[FUC_U_PAYME]

only if they can prove corruption

[RlCKY]

No because it completely erradicates the little amount of integrity that is left.

They need a new judging system completely.

[Hougigo]

What do you guys think? If a high profile decision goes really wrong, should the state athletic commissions have an option to overturn decisions? This would only be in cases where there was a large public outcry. E.g. Williams - Lara, Pacquiao - Bradley, Lewis - Holyfield. If not the state athletic commission, then who?

Side question: Should Harold Ledderman score every HBO fight?


My personal opinion:
I DON'T think this option should be given to the sanctioning bodies, they are known for their eternal corruption and idiocy. They have their own agenda which is completely separate from the good of the sport. However, if it could be set up right - the State athletic commission could elect a constant "judge board" to reevaluate these bogus decisions.

I also personally believe that Harold Ledderman is a great judge and that a lot less controversial decisions would be given out if he scored every HBO fight. He isn't afraid to score the fight for a fighter he doesn't like.

This is the problem... why do you limit it to high profile?
Oh, it's fine if somebody gets robbed if they don't have a name.......

[Hougigo]

I just love how ts completely left out Pac-Marquez,lol!!

Hey man, it was a close fight!
IT DOESN'T COUNT!

[The Gambler1981]

No because that is a real slippery slope and State commission are not that trust worthy. Unless of course they can actually prove there was some wrong doing like corruption and even then it should be more like changing it to a no contest.

Judging fights is very subjective and it all comes down to what they see or think they see, there will always be people that disgree with certain score cards and that is even if people judge properly.

[Alonzo Harris]

No the state would end up getting paid off by promoters and become a part of the problem.

they should be allowed to change rediculous decisions to No contests and order rematches however.

Boxing needs to change it's rules to get it's house in order.

1. judging criteria needs to change have 5 judges score a fight on ring skill, effective aggresion and defense and give points out of ten for each category so a maximum of 30 points and deduct points if a fighter is knocked down (say 5 points)

2. allow 90 seconds rest between rounds so we don't end up getting clich fests after 9/10 rounds.

3. change the format from 12 3 minute rounds to 11 2.30 minute rounds. this would make draws less likely and again fighters would have to be busier to win fights.

4. make juding a full time job and pay them decently so corruption isn't as alluring and set a retirement age of 60. (maybe try to hire ex fighters as judges as they know how to score a fight and there's enough of them around that need money)

5. give judges access to tv footage during big fights so they can judge more accurately.

6. get rid of all the abc belts and create one governing body (like fifa but for boxing)

7. refs retirement age of 60.

of course none of this will ever happen but if it did boxing would be revolnlutionized and would become mainstream again.