By Lyle Fitzsimmons
In Florida, we call it the “cone of uncertainty.”
Whenever a hurricane clears the island of Hispaniola in the eastern Caribbean, meteorologists of every Sunshine State persuasion are sent scrambling to computer models to trace the path of the would-be storm as it approaches our tourist- and retiree-sopped peninsula.
At the business end of the cautionary arc is a flared-out section that illustrates the few hundred mile range within which the rain, wind and other fun and games will actually make landfall. And while their pre-landfall appearances on camera tend to lean a smidge toward the overdramatic, my nine-plus years in the southernmost state have shown me the weather guys generally get it right.
Which is why, in the aftermath of yet another teeth-gnashing weekend of boxing judging – and having already seen the predictably fatalistic pronouncements that never follow too far behind – I’ve decided to co-opt a little of Jim Cantore’s act for the boxing crowd.
Introducing, ladies and gentlemen… the “cone of judging uncertainty.”
Available from me to you, my cherished Tuesday fans, free of charge.
Its practical application for non-dangerous storm situations is simple. When you watch a fight and add up your own scores, simply overlay the cone onto your paperwork and allow for a two-point swing in either direction from what you’d tallied – because, after all, none of us is infallible.
And let’s face it, if you can’t stay within two rounds of a generally accepted norm – whether you’re a professionally licensed judge or you hawk overpriced smokes for a living – maybe you ought to try scoring MMA instead.
At any rate, if the eventual official scorecard totals fall within the cone, the decision is legit and a case can be made that the right man won. And if they don’t, well, then feel free to proceed with your rants about incompetence, corruption or whatever other windmill you’d care to tilt at.
Or at the very least, go ahead and consider that subscription to Fighters Only.
Given the latest controversy of the moment – Saturday’s Andre Ward vs. Sergey Kovalev light heavyweight duel in Las Vegas – the arrival of the cone on store shelves is particularly well-timed.
Using my own score totals – incidentally, I had Ward winning, 114-113 – and applying the cone reveals that a similar verdict in Kovalev’s favor could also be appropriate.
Obviously, the nuance of any fight indicates in which direction that allowance is best utilized.
Given my own perspective on Saturday’s scrap – which I had dead-even through 11 before giving the last to Ward – I’d be more apt to believe I shaded close rounds in the new champ’s favor than Kovalev’s, meaning a one-point nod for Krusher would be more palatable to me than a three-pointer for S.O.G.
Either way, though, unless you think your scorecard is so pristine that no variance is acceptable, the cone does allow for a tad more contemplative thought before clicking send on yet another incendiary conspiracy theorist rant that provides always ample heat but precious little light.
Unlike a lot of people in this gig, I’ve never been that sure that I’m smartest person in the room.
So while I concur that multiple-point scores in Ward’s favor may be misguided, they’re only slightly different than cards that see Kovalev ahead by a five- or six-point margin – calculations that indicate to me that the scorer stopped paying attention shortly after Ward rose from a second-round knockdown.
To these eyes, it was a good, tough fight and could have gone either way.
And though I’m no one to put blind faith in punch-count statistics, when one guy lands a better percentage of his jabs, his power shots and his total throws – as Ward did – he makes a pretty strong case that he deserves to win. For me, that’s good enough.
For a little more context, though, I applied the cone to a few other recent and vintage fights which had scores that were particularly noteworthy.
A few months ago in Brooklyn, my Frampton-Santa Cruz card was a 6-6 draw, mirroring the score of judge Guido Cavalleri and allowing for the 116-112 in favor of Frampton by Frank Lombardi, but suggesting the 117-111 computation of Tom Schreck might have been a bit much.
And a few weeks earlier – Thurman vs. Porter – my two-point nod for the winner was aligned with judges Eric Marlinski, Waleska Roldan and Steve Weisfeld, though if anyone applies the cone and surmises Porter was a similarly narrow winner, I’ll buy it.
Use it in good health… and if the trees start blowing sideways, evacuate.
* * * * * * * * * *
This week’s title-fight schedule:
FRIDAY
IBO super flyweight title – Site TBA, South Africa
Gideon Buthelezi (champion/No. 16 IWBR) vs. Jonas Sultan (No. 26 IBO/No. 36 IWBR)
Buthelezi (17-5, 4 KO): Second title defense; Previous IBO reigns at 108, 115 pounds
Sultan (11-3, 7 KO): First title fight; Third fight outside the Philippines (1-1, 1 KO)
Fitzbitz says: The reigning champion is six years older, but he’s also far more experienced on the championship-level stage and should acquit himself well once again. Buthelezi by decision
SATURDAY
WBO middleweight title – Cardiff, United Kingdom
Billy Joe Saunders (champion/No. 4 IWBR) vs. Artur Akavov (No. 10 WBO/No. 41 IWBR)
Saunders (23-0, 12 KO): First title defense; First fight in Wales
Akavov (16-1, 7 KO): First title fight; Fifth fight outside of Russia (4-0, 3 KO)
Fitzbitz says: The UK incumbent can keep beating the drum for a Golovkin match, but he’s far better off staying on the level he’s at here. It’s a lot safer. Saunders in 9
WBO lightweight title – Cardiff, United Kingdom
Terry Flanagan (champion/No. 7 IWBR) vs. Orlando Cruz (No. 13 WBO/Unranked IWBR)
Flanagan (31-0, 12 KO): Fourth title defense; Second fight in Wales (1-0, 0 KO)
Cruz (25-4-1, 13 KO): Second title fight (0-1); Five straight wins since 2014 (5-0, 3 KO)
Fitzbitz says: The challenger has benefitted from his move up to 135, dispatching five straight foes and scoring three KOs. But they weren’t on Flanagan’s level, so the streak ends here. Flanagan by decision
WBO junior lightweight title – Las Vegas, Nevada
Vasyl Lomachenko (champion/No. 4 IWBR) vs. Nicholas Walters (No. 8 WBO/No. 1 IWBR)
Lomachenko (6-1, 4 KO): First title defense; Previous WBO title reign at 126 pounds
Walters (26-0-1, 21 KO): Sixth title fight (5-0); Previous WBA title reign at 126 pounds
Fitzbitz says: I like Walters and it’s a shame he no longer can do 126, because he’s stepping in here with not only a champion but a legit top-five pound-for-pound guy. Lomachenko in 10
Last week's picks: 2-1 (WIN: Ward, Huck; LOSS: Joyi)
2016 picks record: 79-21 (79.0 percent)
Overall picks record: 812-269 (75.1 percent)
NOTE: Fights previewed are only those involving a sanctioning body's full-fledged title-holder – no interim, diamond, silver, etc. Fights for WBA "world championships" are only included if no "super champion" exists in the weight class.
Lyle Fitzsimmons has covered professional boxing since 1995 and written a weekly column for Boxing Scene since 2008. He is a full voting member of the Boxing Writers Association of America. Reach him at fitzbitz@msn.com or follow him on Twitter – @fitzbitz.
