Corruption or incompetence?

Yes, I feel that in most cases you mentioned, it was corruption. The judges don't decide "oh, it's good for boxing if I let this guy win" all of a sudden. Still, on the Khan fight, I believe it was pure incompetence.

I honestly thnk it's just imcompetence running rampant. So much of what you see in boxing is subjective, anyway, but the scoring criteria is based on four separate categories : clean punching, effective (keyword) aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Nowdays too many judges just score a fight based on the one criteria they prefer over all others. You see this often in contests where the judges give the fight to whichever guy throws more punches, even if his opponet was dictating the pace as a counterpuncher and landing the cleaner blows. By his very nature : A counterpuncher should be favored by the judges based on the scoring criteria categories. Because more times than not, it's the counterpuncher who has the better defense (gets hit less), lands the cleaner shots, dictates the tempo of the bout (by his very style alone), and is more effective in his aggression. (As in he's not just swinging wildly - he's making his punches count) Yet who do the judges almost always give the fight to? The guy who throws more punches. :nonono: Sorry, but I can't see that. If your opponent is constantly having to chase you down, pushing you up against the ropes, and landing as many if not more punches then you are, I can't see where they should give you the fight. It is the passive nature and lack of aggression that cost some of them fights, and so it should be. I have nothing against doing some counter punching, but you need to have more detentions in your game, then just constantly running away.

It is a hometown thing that happens way to often lately. Solido did the right thing and showed how you deal with hometown judges. Khan and Marquez are bad examples though. I think it is alright to create a little space to throw punches and when Khan got called for it, I don't think he should have nor do I think he should have been deducted points for it either, but there were times in the fight when Khan did push excessively hard and he almost pushed Peterson down and never got called on it. As far as Marquez goes, there was a bunch of rounds that he made them somewhat close, but he didn't do enough to really pull himself ahead. I can see that those rounds were close enough that some might have gave them to Marquez, so it can see where it could have gone either way, but if you want to win a title fight, you have to do more then produce a few close rounds. I don't remember but was jaro getting robbed on the scorecards before he knocked out wonjongkam also?

i used to think it was incompetence, but, nah, it's just too prevalent. it's corruption. funny how the cashcow is always on the favourable end of the "incompetence".

I honestly thnk it's just imcompetence running rampant. So much of what you see in boxing is subjective, anyway, but the scoring criteria is based on four separate categories : clean punching, effective (keyword) aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Nowdays too many judges just score a fight based on the one criteria they prefer over all others. You see this often in contests where the judges give the fight to whichever guy throws more punches, even if his opponet was dictating the pace as a counterpuncher and landing the cleaner blows. By his very nature : A counterpuncher should be favored by the judges based on the scoring criteria categories. Because more times than not, it's the counterpuncher who has the better defense (gets hit less), lands the cleaner shots, dictates the tempo of the bout (by his very style alone), and is more effective in his aggression. (As in he's not just swinging wildly - he's making his punches count) Yet who do the judges almost always give the fight to? The guy who throws more punches. :nonono:

It is a hometown thing that happens way to often lately. Solido did the right thing and showed how you deal with hometown judges. Khan and Marquez are bad examples though. I think it is alright to create a little space to throw punches and when Khan got called for it, I don't think he should have nor do I think he should have been deducted points for it either, but there were times in the fight when Khan did push excessively hard and he almost pushed Peterson down and never got called on it. As far as Marquez goes, there was a bunch of rounds that he made them somewhat close, but he didn't do enough to really pull himself ahead. I can see that those rounds were close enough that some might have gave them to Marquez, so it can see where it could have gone either way, but if you want to win a title fight, you have to do more then produce a few close rounds.

is boxing really becoming hugely corrupt at the moment, or is it just that the influential people in the sport are just plain useless? I'll give a few examples: The wba heavyweight circlejerk - i've seen the strange way that john ruiz just kept getting wba title shots explained as corruption. Really? What does the wba have to gain by fixing title shots for a guy that nobody wants to watch? I've seen similar claims about hasim rahman's inexplicable climb up the wba rankings. I don't see corruption here - i see incompetent, out of touch idiots who think that there's some amazing prestige to having a man who was briefly the man a decade ago fighting for their trinket. Khan, the referee and the man in the hat - this time we've got a bizarre refereeing performance arguably costing a fighter his title. Had this been the other way around, i'd wonder about corruption. But khan's the potential golden boy cash cow. Even if it was local bribery, rather than grand scale, why would a world championship referee put his career on the line for one fight? Again, i concluded that it was just an incompetent refereeing performance. This isn't to say that i don't believe corruption is around too - marquez got robbed against pacquiao so as not to endanger a potential mayweather fight, i have no doubt about that. But did anyone organise it, or did the judges do what they (wrongly) thought was best for the sport off their own backs? Were the judges that scored froch-dirrell and helenius-chisora paid off or were they swayed by crowd reactions and the atmosphere on the night? Basically, do you think the clearly incorrect scorecards, the bizarre title shots and strange actions of the sanctioning bodies that we see as evidence of corruption might actually be symptoms of bad management and aging judges? corruption

Yesterday it was corruption.

incompetence, promoters, home crowds, governing bodies, all play a part in bad decisions, all the blame can't go one way, it's different for every fight

Corruption is pretty rampant in the sport IMO. There's been rather awful score-cards on a few of Mr. Arum's recent big fights for example, in favour of his cash-cow's...Salido ended what would have been another robbery.