By Michael Marley
I long subscribed to the idea/theory that scoring controversies were grist for the boxing mill.
As of today, I have canceled that subscription.
For example, Juan Manuel Marquez and Manny Pacquiao fans continue to rant back and forth over who really won their two bouts between the Mexican counterpuncher and the Pinoy Idol.
Certainly, that backdrop of prior controversy is a spicy ingedient for a third bout which could take place if Pacman insists on flipping Bob Arum's May 7 bout script. I see a ray of light for those who hope Sugar Shane Mosley is dropped as Manny's next foe in favor of Juan Ma.
Marquez makes sense for the date, what with it being Cinco de Mayo weekend in Las Vegas.
I just think there's an internal debate going on within the Pacquiao camp and I think Arum's returning from the Philippines without naming Pacman's next foe is evidence of that, circumstantial evidence but evidence nonetheless.
But, whether Juan Ma gets the nod as Pacman's upcoming punchbag or Mosley does, I've changed my alleged mind about scoring in our sport/business.
The selection of officials is inherently rotten and so is the way fights are scored.
Bernard Hopkins less than grand larceny but still a theft majority draw after 12 rounds with almost 18 years younger Jean Pascal Saturday night in Quebec City is the latest reminder of the dismal offiating and scoring setup.
American judge Steve Morrow got it right, exactly right, with a 114-112 BHop tally. It was right because it was but, coincidentally, that was my off TV score and ditto for sharp-eyed, Yahoo scribe Kevin Iole.
Canadian judge Claude Pacquette (113-113) and Belgian veteran Daniel Van de Wiele (114-114) mucked it up with their deadlock votes.
Morrow's rounds scoring was 8-4, in favor of Hopkins, while the other two judges also gave more rounds to the old man than to Pacal, Pacquette having it 7-5 for BHop and Van de Wiele having it 6-5-1, his big goof somehow calling the 10th round, where Hopkins clearly won, even.
In other words, this Belgian waffled.
Golden Boy's Richard Schaefer was absolutely right in his postfight rant, saying:
“It’s really a shame, it’s a shame for Canada, it’s a shame for boxing to have a decision like that. We had Canadian people, Canadian fans come up to us and tell us he (Hopkins) won. That is what is wrong with boxing. He sure didn’t lose, I think if you think that, you don’t know what boxing means. Look at the scorecards; it happens all the time up here, that is what is wrong with boxing. It’s a disgrace. We are going to file a protest. The WBC will order an immediate rematch and we will see what other legal remedies we have because this is wrong. This is wrong.
“If you’re in the boxing business and give the 10th round to Jean Pascal, I think you should retire and look for another job. (note: 2 judges had Hopkins winning while Daniel Van de Wiele of Belgium had 10-10). Even the judge from Canada scored that round for Hopkins. Hopkins won that round, no matter what. Guess what,the guy from Belgium scored it a 10-10 round. How rare is that? If the guy from Belgium scores that round correct, we have a new undisputed light-heavyweight champion.
“What really jumps out to me is that 10th round. It is unexplainable to me. It is ridiculous.
“I did talk to Jose Sulaiman and he feels as well that this is highway robbery and that he will order that Jean Pascal will have to defend his title immediately against Bernard Hopkins.
“I don’t think that’s point here though. This is bad for the sport. It is bad for Pascal. If you guys think that Pascal helps himself with this kind of decision, then you’re wrong because boxing around the world is not going to embrace that decision very warmly.
You know I rarely cite Mr. Schaefer as a fountain of fistic wisdom but, in this instance, I jump into his foxhole to fight the good fight about the bad scoring in this one.
Why can't the judges give the fight to the guy who wins it no matter how close it is after 36 minutes?
The Red Sox can beat the Yankees, 8-7, or vice versa. But close victories in boxing in which the real "winner" goes away with the victory are rare indeed.
Naturally, I've got some ideas to remedy this problem:
1. EXTRA ROUND, CALL IT OVERTIME OR JUST MAKE FIGHTS 11 OR 13 ROUNDS -- Why not since draws are like trying to kiss Beyonce through a screen door? Who likes draws, nobody except promoters who can then put on a lazy man's rematch? Many years ago, California had five round bouts for neophyte pros. I don't know why five rounders were dropped but surely there were a lot less draws than there were in typical four rounders.
2. ELIMINATE GEOGRAPHICAL SELECTION OF OFFICIALS -- I'm told the BHop side and the Pascal side each picked two of the four officials. We wound up with a Canadian referee, one judge from Quebec, one from Belgium and one from the U.S. Van de Wiele is one of the better, highly experienced world title bout judges but do we really have to fly a guy from Europe in to score a fight between an American and a Canadian screen on Showtime? I'm not referring particularly to Van de Wiele on this but most Euro judges have a weakness for scoring more rounds "even" and winding up with draw final tallies than do judges on this side of the pond. The WBC and the other big alphabet groups need to stop talking about it and actually organize a Super Panel of, let's say, the best 12 officials, about nine judges and three referees, and take turns having them work the biggest bouts. That would eliminate this childish two Canadian, one American, one Belgian selection of officials and reward the best refs (example, Kenny Bayless) and best judges (Jerry Roth and Chuck Giampa, for example). (I know, I know, Giampa retired his pen and scorecard but maybe we can entice him back.)
3. REDRAW THE FRAMEWORK FOR SCORING -- We all thik we know what clean, effective punching is but many judges analyze that differently. And what person not named Harold or Julie Lederman even knows what the chilched "ring generalship" means? I mean it is not immediately recognizable. Maybe it's time to factor in the punch stat, CompuBox numbers into the scoring of fights. Are those numbers worthy or worthless, just ornamentation for telecasts? If they're valid, shouldn't they have some place in each judge's computation?
I'm sure this is an issue I'll be coming back to you and, if you care about boxing, you will also.