American Judges as useless as any other country's.

Nothing compares to the judges in Germany.. Why do you think the careers of Maske & Ottke went so exceedingly well.. Neither of them were exactly Mr Kipling.. I fear for Haye cos Wlad knows the crack...

Money talks. Just ask Tommy Kaczmarek.

man your comments are so long.... And yours are so irrelevant. boxing judges suck. it's 2009. this is no news headline. This is no news headline indeed, its an opinion. Are they out of fashion on a message forum in 2009?

boxing judges suck. it's 2009. this is no news headline.

man your comments are so long....

Judges need to be sat down in seperate rooms inside the arena with a t.v at their disposal so they can look back at anything in the round during the time outs, and then make a decision based on replays. Sitting ringside where the crowd can influence you is harming the sport.

yeah, but the difference is that in america we boo bullshiit decisions. Everyone boos bullshit decisions when they are countryman vs countryman. You just happen to have more American vs American fights over there on primetime TV than the UK does because you have more fighters. Had Clinton Woods been cheated against Roy Jones and unfairly lost the match on the scorecards (try getting a more fictional theoretical result than that), nobody in the mostly American crowd would've booed.

Check out THIS post where I also responded to that point. This is not a nationalistic thing, nobody is saying that Americans make bad judges. The point is that the judging of fights IN America is as bad as it is generally around the world (obviously with a few awful exceptions). In most world title fights, no matter where they are in the world, its highly unlikely that you will have three or even two judges representing the country of either fighter in the bout. yeah, but the difference is that in america we boo bullshiit decisions.

hey mofo's check out this post... 2 of those judges aint american Check out THIS post where I also responded to that point. 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". This is not a nationalistic thing, nobody is saying that Americans make bad judges. The point is that the judging of fights IN America is as bad as it is generally around the world (obviously with a few awful exceptions). In most world title fights, no matter where they are in the world, its highly unlikely that you will have three or even two judges representing the country of either fighter in the bout.

It has very little to do with demonstrating the poor judging specific to America. More to highlight how bad the judging is in boxing generally (America not exempt).

Nobuaki Uratani is from Japan. Jack Woodburn is Canadian. :) hey mofo's check out this post... 2 of those judges aint american

Thats a very good point. What happened to drawn rounds? It used to be quite regular to see many rounds drawn when I grew up watching boxing, but seemingly not anymore.

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? Actually, I can believe it with this one, there were four in the middle part of the fight that were very hard to call, and having just watched it again they are still difficult to call. If individual rounds are that tight, it can happen that if judges have only slightly different criteria or, to be precise, opinions on criteria one or the other will be favoured. IMHO part of the trouble is a reluctance to give drawn rounds, they should do that more often - it's just avoiding it happening so often it become an indicator of indecision. Fortunately, it didn't matter.

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.

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.

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 shitty 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?

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.

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

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".