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

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....... This boils down to an issue of "manpower". To go through the review and overturn process for a fight that about 15 people saw at a YMCA somewhere probably isn't necessary. Also I think this is less of a problem on the small time level for a few reasons. One reason being that "corruption" and "bias" are much less of a factor in judging for "no-names". In other words, there is not much incentive to wrongly give a fight to a guy. Crowds also aren't going wild for a guy with 5 fights on his record, in reference to the "crowd cheering affects judging" argument. Another reason is that on the amateur level, usually one guy is clearly better than the other. There aren't that many close fights. On the world class level, these guys are approaching the peak of skill and genetic potential - the skill disparity is much smaller.

the State athletic commission could elect a constant "judge board" to reevaluate these bogus decisions. I like this idea. Have several judges re-score the fight, get the average scorecard and if it differs from the original decision then overturn it. No the state would end up getting paid off by promoters and become a part of the problem. If they have a panel of 10 judges the promoters would have to bribe at least 6 of them. A lot more expensive than bribing 2 judges so it might be a deterrent. they should be allowed to change rediculous decisions to No contests and order rematches however. Not fair for the guy who trained his ass off and actually won. 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) Too complicated. Remember judges only have a few seconds to write on their scorecards before giving them to the referee between rounds. We need a simple scoring system that can measure how clearly a fighter won the round. How about this : If you do just enough to win the round = 1 pt If you win the round clearly without doing damage = 2pts If you beat up and hurt your opponent without scoring a knockdown= 3pts Add one extra point for every knockdown.

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. I feel the exact opposite, I don't see how you could possibly have given bradley any more than 2 rounds. I see people giving Bradley 4 or 5 rounds and apparently, we are watching a different fight. Bradley clearly got beat down in that fight, it wasn't remotely close. I had the same scorecard as Ledderman, and I believe Dan Rafael from ESPN did as well. I feel both these guys are extremely credible. I just love how ts completely left out Pac-Marquez,lol!! :lol1: I had pacquiao winning a close fight the first two times, and the third one a draw. Lots of people had the similar results. All three fights were very close. Some pacquiao fanboys believe that he destroyed marquez every time, and some pacquiao haters believe that marquez boxed circles around pacquiao. Truth is - the fights were close, I am a fan of both fighters and there is no result that could have been given that wouldn't have been regarded as controversial by the boxing community. To suggest otherwise... well you'd just be wrong. In reality when those guys fought, a large number of the rounds should have been considered a draw. Score those super close rounds as draw rounds and I bet your scorecard reflects what really happened a lot better.

No they shouldn't, they should just order a rematch and declare the result a NC if the winner does not want the fight.

Hey man, it was a close fight! IT DOESN'T COUNT! ;) Yeah, to the obvious fanboys!!:lol1:

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.

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.

I just love how ts completely left out Pac-Marquez,lol!! :lol1: Hey man, it was a close fight! IT DOESN'T COUNT! ;)

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.......

No because it completely erradicates the little amount of integrity that is left. They need a new judging system completely.

only if they can prove corruption

I just love how ts completely left out Pac-Marquez,lol!! :lol1:

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.