"Muh fixed scorecards"

[dan-b]

The online boxing community is in thrall to conspiracism. Comments like "they weren't going to give him the decision" are thrown around with ease. Whilst I accept judges can be influenced by home fighter bias, I actually think judges being given brown envelopes or told by the promoter of the event who to score for is rare.

Conspiracists are the ones making the claim here, so it's incumbent on them to explain it:

1. In the age of universal smartphone ownership, why do we never see direct evidence of judges/referees being corrupted?
2. In a sensationalist age where scandal generates clicks, why do whistleblowers never come forward to expose this large scale corruption which supposedly exists?
3. What are the mechanics of the corruption? Does Eddie Hearn (or whoever) give the brown envelopes to the judges directly or does it pass through go-betweens? The larger your conspiracy gets the more difficult it is to sustain.
4. Why credit the grotty characters in boxing with such ability? If they were that good at orchestrating large scale conspiracies undetected, surely they'd be working in a more lucrative business than boxing?

I know some people will interpret as a defence of the people in boxing. It's not. It's just I always prefer rational scepticism to conspiracism. Until some of the above questions can be addressed I can't seriously entertain a conspiracy theory.

[deathofaclown]

The online boxing community is in thrall to conspiracism. Comments like "they weren't going to give him the decision" are thrown around with ease. Whilst I accept judges can be influenced by home fighter bias, I actually think judges being given brown envelopes or told by the promoter of the event who to score for is rare.

Conspiracists are the ones making the claim here, so it's incumbent on them to explain it:

1. In the age of universal smartphone ownership, why do we never see direct evidence of judges/referees being corrupted?
2. In a sensationalist age where scandal generates clicks, why do whistleblowers never come forward to expose this large scale corruption which supposedly exists?
3. What are the mechanics of the corruption? Does Eddie Hearn (or whoever) give the brown envelopes to the judges directly or does it pass through go-betweens? The larger your conspiracy gets the more difficult it is to sustain.
4. Why credit the grotty characters in boxing with such ability? If they were that good at orchestrating large scale conspiracies undetected, surely they'd be working in a more lucrative business than boxing?

I know some people will interpret as a defence of the people in boxing. It's not. It's just I always prefer rational scepticism to conspiracism. Until some of the above questions can be addressed I can't seriously entertain a conspiracy theory.

I don't think it's brown envelope stuff. Maybe in the past, probably likely to get rumbled these days...but who knows, every big industry I'd corrupt, they could find ways.

I just think it's somewhat ingrained in judges to side with the A side, money guy, home fighter etc. Whether they're being paid or not.

The truth is when people say "this fighter was never getting the decision", its because its often true. Theres no hiding that the vast majority of close decisions or flat out robberies are for the fighter everyone knows is the A side in the event.

I think it's more just an attitude that's ingrained in boxing. Like people say "you have to rip the title for the champ" and it's somehow accepted to be true. I think it's nonsense, if you shade 7 rounds, you won the fight, you should be champ. You shouldn't need to win 8 or 9 clear rounds to win a fight because your opponent is a big name or a champ. That's not the rules of the sports. A lower Premier league team doesn't need to win 2-0 to get the win over Man City. But in boxing it seems to be the way it is.

so i do think there's it's an attitude more so than pure bribery. Although i can't remember which big trainer said it, but he said that judges get treated well the night before a big fight with certain promoters, they get invited to nice dinners etc. Personally i dont think they should be allowed, mixing with the judges. But maybe judges show favouritism to promoters because they get treated well at the event, but without any transactions taking hands.

[F!x]

There still is corruption within the sport but perhaps it's not quite as widespread as it once was. Although it's difficult to tell for sure because the conspiring parties are unlikely to expose themselves or their partners openly. In modern times, brown envelopes can be replaced with *******. But to give you a clear example that it isn't purely a conspiratorial myth, here's the most memorable story from 2012. And worth noting that the IBA has now been banned from the Olympics because of match-fixing.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...an-medals-cash

azerOlympicsIBA.jpg

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Promoters/event organisers have far too much contact with officials IMO. For example in the UK, the promoters will essentially pay the expenses for the judges, referee’s etc as they’ll pay for their travel, accommodation etc. I think this creates a natural bias especially as it’s a very select group of referees and promoters consistently working together.

[Zaroku]

Sent in butler to fix this criminal behaviour

[dan-b]

Bumped for hhh1200

[Spray_resistant]

Are you suggesting that well organized predetermined robberies and dives don't happen? They most certainly do and yes promoters, fighter, judges, and refs are all in on it. Boxing has always been like that, it appears to be very common.

[dan-b]

Are you suggesting that well organized predetermined robberies and dives don't happen? They most certainly do and yes promoters, fighter, judges, and refs are all in on it. Boxing has always been like that, it appears to be very common.

I was posing a challenge to those regularly making the claim. Just pick an alleged example and address the four points. It shouldn't be difficult.

[Spray_resistant]

I was posing a challenge to those regularly making the claim. Just pick an alleged example and address the four points. It shouldn't be difficult.

Gabe Campillo vs Tavoris Cloud, maybe one of the worst robberies I have seen.

Wilder vs Scott, a very obvious dive especially since he is his close buddy who acts like his GF now defending him at every opportunity.

Close fights are not robberies though, people went ranting on after Haney/Loma, it was a close fight and I can understand how some people scored for Loma but realistically very few rds were clearly won by either fighter.

[dan-b]

Bumping this as I'm seeing lots of "muh fixed scorecards" even though the correct boxer got the decision.

I'm pretty sure GBP have been accused of "muh fixed scorecards" in the past, so they supposedly lost the bribing contest to Matchroom but GBP's guy still got the decision?

This is the fundamental problem with conspiracists: sheer lack of logic, they run on emotion.

Just because Ryan scored three knockdowns doesn't mean the scorecards should have been 120 - 105. He definitely lost some rounds, arguably most rounds.