Mayweather vs Corrales and Pacquiao vs Marquez 1

[marco55]

Speaking of Pacquiao/Marquez#1,...………...Pacquiao actually won the fight but got screwed. Right after the draw was announced, one judge realized he should have given Pacquiao an extra point and therefore he would have won by split decision. The judge admitted that he should have scored the first round `10-6, as was being discussed here. An appeal to the Las Vegas crime commission yielded the most absurd answer by any criminal organization yet. The commissioner said an error by a judge doesn't justify correcting the score. My question is if a math error by a judge doesn't justify a correction, then what the hell does? These guys work their asses off in training, there's a lot at stake, a lot of people are affected. The difference between a win and a draw may not be a big deal, or it could make the difference in a guy's career possibly. When a judge admits a math error, that's not judgement of a particular round, it's a simple error that nobody can dispute and that the fighter had no part in, yet the idiots in Vegas thought it fair to penalize Pacquiao for a judges screw up. That ruling opened the door for a whole lot of cheating. Judges now understand they can play dumb and pretend making an error, knowing the commission won't correct it. A judge could therefore cheat without fear of being caught, a beautiful set up to cheat if so inclined. The Vegas commission is beyond ignorant and corrupt.

[Mario040481]

Speaking of Pacquiao/Marquez#1,...………...Pacquiao actually won the fight but got screwed. Right after the draw was announced, one judge realized he should have given Pacquiao an extra point and therefore he would have won by split decision. The judge admitted that he should have scored the first round `10-6, as was being discussed here. An appeal to the Las Vegas crime commission yielded the most absurd answer by any criminal organization yet. The commissioner said an error by a judge doesn't justify correcting the score. My question is if a math error by a judge doesn't justify a correction, then what the hell does? These guys work their asses off in training, there's a lot at stake, a lot of people are affected. The difference between a win and a draw may not be a big deal, or it could make the difference in a guy's career possibly. When a judge admits a math error, that's not judgement of a particular round, it's a simple error that nobody can dispute and that the fighter had no part in, yet the idiots in Vegas thought it fair to penalize Pacquiao for a judges screw up. That ruling opened the door for a whole lot of cheating. Judges now understand they can play dumb and pretend making an error, knowing the commission won't correct it. A judge could therefore cheat without fear of being caught, a beautiful set up to cheat if so inclined. The Vegas commission is beyond ignorant and corrupt.

That's why I posted this. But I believe they let the scoring stand because the judges are not 100% obligated to score rounds in the manner that has, for the most part, became the standard. Examples being the way they can score a round which contained a knockdown 10-9 when they feel like the knocked down fighter, outside of being knocked down, more than dominated his opponent for the vast majority of the round, or scoring a round 10-8 even though neither fighter was dropped. At the moment the only thing that comes to mind as to what is mandatory for judges to score, is when the ref deducts points, but even then, if a guy dominates the round enough and although the point was taken from him, the judges are capable of scoring the round 9-9.

[OctoberRed]

Speaking of Pacquiao/Marquez#1,...………...Pacquiao actually won the fight but got screwed. Right after the draw was announced, one judge realized he should have given Pacquiao an extra point and therefore he would have won by split decision. The judge admitted that he should have scored the first round `10-6, as was being discussed here. An appeal to the Las Vegas crime commission yielded the most absurd answer by any criminal organization yet. The commissioner said an error by a judge doesn't justify correcting the score. My question is if a math error by a judge doesn't justify a correction, then what the hell does? These guys work their asses off in training, there's a lot at stake, a lot of people are affected. The difference between a win and a draw may not be a big deal, or it could make the difference in a guy's career possibly. When a judge admits a math error, that's not judgement of a particular round, it's a simple error that nobody can dispute and that the fighter had no part in, yet the idiots in Vegas thought it fair to penalize Pacquiao for a judges screw up. That ruling opened the door for a whole lot of cheating. Judges now understand they can play dumb and pretend making an error, knowing the commission won't correct it. A judge could therefore cheat without fear of being caught, a beautiful set up to cheat if so inclined. The Vegas commission is beyond ignorant and corrupt.

I remember a judge claiming that he screwed up and should have scored it 10-6.

[Anthony342]

I remember a judge claiming that he screwed up and should have scored it 10-6.

So then why not just correct it? What's so difficult about this? Someone made a mistake, so go back and correct it. It's like that pitcher that should have gotten a perfect game and the umpire even admitted he got the call wrong at first on the throw to first because the runner was really out. But Bud Selig wouldn't correct that either. There's no reason not to go back and fix those things. Make them right. It's a big part of why I don't watch basketball anymore, because most fouls called don't make any sense, like you can't reach in on a guy with his back to you, but also if he bumps into you and you bump him back, you get called for a foul. Or the defensive player gets run into when the player with the ball goes for a layup, yet somehow that's a foul when he never moved. It's like when you're stopped at a red light and some a$$hole rear ends your car, yet somehow your insurance rates so up too. I HATE things that make no sense. And why do we just allow it? Why does nobody try to change this stuff? Make it so that people are held accountable for this shlt and mistakes get corrected already. Pacquiao should have got a win in his first fight with Marquez, according to those scores. I'll never understand why someone hardly ever steps in, sees something is wrong and just does the right thing. And if that's not the rule, then, since you're in charge, change the f#*ckin rule.

[Mario040481]

So then why not just correct it? What's so difficult about this? Someone made a mistake, so go back and correct it. It's like that pitcher that should have gotten a perfect game and the umpire even admitted he got the call wrong at first on the throw to first because the runner was really out. But Bud Selig wouldn't correct that either. There's no reason not to go back and fix those things. Make them right. It's a big part of why I don't watch basketball anymore, because most fouls called don't make any sense, like you can't reach in on a guy with his back to you, but also if he bumps into you and you bump him back, you get called for a foul. Or the defensive player gets run into when the player with the ball goes for a layup, yet somehow that's a foul when he never moved. It's like when you're stopped at a red light and some a$$hole rear ends your car, yet somehow your insurance rates so up too. I HATE things that make no sense. And why do we just allow it? Why does nobody try to change this stuff? Make it so that people are held accountable for this shlt and mistakes get corrected already. Pacquiao should have got a win in his first fight with Marquez, according to those scores. I'll never understand why someone hardly ever steps in, sees something is wrong and just does the right thing. And if that's not the rule, then, since you're in charge, change the f#*ckin rule.

Below is a drawn out and dumb example, the gist of which is that, because judges are not mandatorily obligated to score a round with 3 knockdowns as 10-6, yet at a later time the judge comes up and says he made a mistake and wants to just change his score, you can't possibly be certain that's why he's all the sudden deciding he needs to change his score.

Id imagine it could be something like: Im this billionaire Pac fan, and sometime after the fight I go up to Burt Clements and say "hey I noticed you scored round 1 10-7 for Pac."
Clements answers "Yeah, I don't generally score a 3 knockdown round less than a 10-7, it'll normally put the other guy to far outta the fight (Harold Lederman's quote) what's it to ya?"
Pac fan says "Ill give ya a million to go up to Marc Ratzner and tell him how you didn't know you could score a rd 10-6, and now you wanna change your card and now Manny can be the winner!"

[QueensburyRules]

- -The reason bad results are seldom changed is that it would upend the bookies who already paid out.

[Mario040481]

- -The reason bad results are seldom changed is that it would upend the bookies who already paid out.

You know what? That's probably the best of possibly many, at least in my opinion, legitimate reasons fight results are seldom overturned. You have also brought up another question I've intended to ask on occasion, but intending to ask questions necessitates the ability to remember the questions one's intending to ask at a later opportunity, and I frequently forget that I've, on what I THINK is numerous occasions, accepted that I just am not proficient with the ability to remember the things I intend to ask...aaaaannnnddd, what was I saying? Oh, yes. So, how do the bookies handle fights where the fighter who is declared the winner on fight night is later found to have committed an infraction of the sort that overturns the result?

[QueensburyRules]

- -Never bet on boxing or sports.

Bet on Poker where I can control the outcome.

[Rusty Tromboni]

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.

genius.

More dedicated camera angles. The opportunity to slow down tape, do replays.

It is fairer, for sure.

And the oversight should have been in place from day one. Shows how corrupt boxing is. Maybe even bring back the ND - let the consensus of the press determine the winner.

[The Old LefHook]

Three judges, as we are used to, score the fight. But a three person review panel, isolated from the fight itself, watches and reviews only knockdowns, penalty deductions and other "challenges," if any, for their correctness, and has final say on these matters. Official decision is delayed up to 1/2 hour or as required. Problem solved.

The above should be done under a rigid scoring system, e.g. three KDs would always be scored 10-6 unless the victim did something dramatic other than survive to nullify it.