Mayweather vs Corrales and Pacquiao vs Marquez 1

[Mario040481]

About a year ago I just so happened to watch both of these fights within a week of each other, which is probably the only reason I noticed the differing statements given by Lederman over these two similar in ring scoring situations. Has anyone else here ever noticed this too? Does anyone have a guess, or maybe a factual answer, as to what may've caused a change to Lederman's scoring criteria in the three years between these two fights? Was there maybe a ruling change? Was there a fight that prompted a change in the opinions of most judges? Last, anyone know of other similar examples of fights where either of the two scoring examples occurred? Asking purely out of curiosity with no agenda.

"...by the way, Jim, the three knockdown round, I went 10-7. most judges will not go below 10-7 because it puts the other guy too far out of the fight." - Harold Lederman giving his score during the 9th round of Floyd Mayweather vs Diego Corrales, on Jan 20, 2001*

"...Jim, that first round was a 10-6 round. You get an extra point when you knock a guy off his feet, you get two extra points when you knock him off his feet twice, you get three extra points for putting him off his feet three times. So, subtract 3 from 10- 9 , you get a 10-6 round..." - Harold Lederman giving his score during the 4th round of Juan Manuel Marquez vs Manny Pacquiao I, on May 8, 2004**

*Mayweather vs Coralles: https://********/HkD6WCA4rYk?t=2089

**Marquez vs Pac 1: https://********/LLNKnj7lc1g?t=569

[billeau2]

About a year ago I just so happened to watch both of these fights within a week of each other, which is probably the only reason I noticed the differing statements given by Lederman over these two similar in ring scoring situations. Has anyone else here ever noticed this too? Does anyone have a guess, or maybe a factual answer, as to what may've caused a change to Lederman's scoring criteria in the three years between these two fights? Was there maybe a ruling change? Was there a fight that prompted a change in the opinions of most judges? Last, anyone know of other similar examples of fights where either of the two scoring examples occurred? Asking purely out of curiosity with no agenda.

"...by the way, Jim, the three knockdown round, I went 10-7. most judges will not go below 10-7 because it puts the other guy too far out of the fight." - Harold Lederman giving his score during the 9th round of Floyd Mayweather vs Diego Corrales, on Jan 20, 2001*

"...Jim, that first round was a 10-6 round. You get an extra point when you knock a guy off his feet, you get two extra points when you knock him off his feet twice, you get three extra points for putting him off his feet three times. So, subtract 3 from 10- 9 , you get a 10-6 round..." - Harold Lederman giving his score during the 4th round of Juan Manuel Marquez vs Manny Pacquiao I, on May 8, 2004**

*Mayweather vs Coralles: https://********/HkD6WCA4rYk?t=2089

**Marquez vs Pac 1: https://********/LLNKnj7lc1g?t=569

Harold Lederman is not universally liked for his judging. I have no use for him. Beyond Lederman per se, judging is an incomplete science and hardly an art. There is no way to avoid subtlety, like just slipping a punch...how do the judges know? the hand is quicker than the eye. Judges have agendas, etc.

I have learned to not take decisions seriously and to evaluate a match on its own merits. If it were up to me I would have 9 judges with each three scoring a round, watching the round slo mo while the next round was scored by the next three judges, and then the next three. It would make for accurate scoring. Judges could have time to review each round and no rush to catch up so to speak. Perfect system to me!

[QueensburyRules]

- -I'd say Harold was quite popular giving a judges Birdseye view of the proceedings never attempted before.

He was handicapped by the useless 10 Must system that reads out like a basketball score to disguise the negative, incremental scoring boxing actually uses.

[Mario040481]

Harold Lederman is not universally liked for his judging...

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply I think Lederman is the standard or the rule. I just find discrepancies of this sort annoying, especially when it's happening in fights with a Mayweather and Pacquiao. These are the fighters who were attracting the most viewers, not so much Mayweather at the time of the Coralles fight, but Manny was definitely popular when the Marquez fight took place. I think a huge number of the viewers are the kinda people who may see one or two fights a yr, and instead of casual fans i think it better here to say potential fans, and these potential fans are gonna base their knowledge of damn near everything to do with the sport off of what the commentary team is telling them, and that's not changing unless they end up sticking around the sport for awhile. You, me, the rest of the board, we know that Lederman wasn't the end all be all, the Yoda of judging and of spitting out the rules of the Association of Boxing Committees (Jim!) and that this example likely doesn't scratch the surface of on air discrepancies, but this one is pretty specific I think. Long winded story short, this kinda thing sucks.

[billeau2]

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply I think Lederman is the standard or the rule. I just find discrepancies of this sort annoying, especially when it's happening in fights with a Mayweather and Pacquiao. These are the fighters who were attracting the most viewers, not so much Mayweather at the time of the Coralles fight, but Manny was definitely popular when the Marquez fight took place. I think a huge number of the viewers are the kinda people who may see one or two fights a yr, and instead of casual fans i think it better here to say potential fans, and these potential fans are gonna base their knowledge of damn near everything to do with the sport off of what the commentary team is telling them, and that's not changing unless they end up sticking around the sport for awhile. You, me, the rest of the board, we know that Lederman wasn't the end all be all, the Yoda of judging and of spitting out the rules of the Association of Boxing Committees (Jim!) and that this example likely doesn't scratch the surface of on air discrepancies, but this one is pretty specific I think. Long winded story short, this kinda thing sucks.

And what people are left with are those inconsistencies and other such foibles and it is a shame.

[GhostofDempsey]

I've seen my share of outright corrupt judging by some of the most highly experienced and respected judges. Without any type of oversight to correct these discrepancies, fighters will continue to get screwed over. I would love to see instant replay introduced to boxing. Especially when ruling questionable knockdowns and low-blows.

I still think boxing judges should not be at ringside. They should be watching the fight on a dedicated big screen monitor so they have a view all vantage points and ability to replay. A lot can be missed sitting ringside while the action is taking place on the other side of the ring or the ref is standing in the way of your view.

[Mario040481]

I've seen my share of outright corrupt judging by some of the most highly experienced and respected judges. Without any type of oversight to correct these discrepancies, fighters will continue to get screwed over. I would love to see instant replay introduced to boxing. Especially when ruling questionable knockdowns and low-blows.

I still think boxing judges should not be at ringside. They should be watching the fight on a dedicated big screen monitor so they have a view all vantage points and ability to replay. A lot can be missed sitting ringside while the action is taking place on the other side of the ring or the ref is standing in the way of your view.

Did you read the Main article the other day about draws and the author having the idea of champions not keeping their belt in the event of a draw? I don't care for much of the ideas the guy had but myy response was....
I would like to see cameras set up with as close to the same view as each judge has, and then, if a whacked out score occurs, someone* will be able to watch the fight from the perspective the whacked out judge, or judges, and see if it is feasibly possible to come up with the score the judge did. It could maybe place a bit more accountability on the judges to actually do the job to the best of their ability because, obviously public scorn alone isn't enough motivation for some judges and it could take away what i'd imagine is one of the bigger excuses given amongst judges and those who stick up for them, "I/they can only judge the fight that I/they see."

*Admittedly, hell if i know who the "someone" impartial enough to do the job as well as possible could be? Most fans certainly believe they could do it, but I don't know about that either...

[QueensburyRules]

- -Lederman for all his few flaws is more credible than what I've seen on this thread.

Yeah, remove the judges to Timbuktu to score fights remotely and it got a one way airdrop into Afghanistan for you also.

Can't fix the unfixable 10 pt must unless the fix is in. As long as the lower life forms remain the last fans boxing has who don't give a fig about basic transparency, you get what you deserve.

I sat side by side with a well known judge close enough that flying snot and such become a concern. In close rounds he asked me my opinion, ie the one of many problems boxing has. The homey gets all those even rds no matter the usurper battered him pillar to post for have the fight.

Boxing suits make their $$$ exploiting their unscrupulous scoring system, hence the migration to UFC.

[OctoberRed]

Harold Lederman is not universally liked for his judging. I have no use for him. Beyond Lederman per se, judging is an incomplete science and hardly an art.

I agree with that.

[billeau2]

I agree with that.

Although I will say I never had a drunk uncle... I used to hear people when I would go to martial arts seminars and they would teach these holds, certain restaints, for example the lead in for the teacher would be, "YOu are at a wedding and a drunk Uncle is grabbing someone, you don't want to harm them but to stop them you grab them like this." Then I thought about my own Uncle with his perfectly bald head and smile. I would really feel bad for those people who had "drunk uncles" so to speak...

Then it hit me: my mom sort of gave me a look when I said my dear nebbish looking uncle would never play "grab @33" at family gatherings... "No mom!!! Not Uncle Gabby!!!!"