Adalaide Byrd, Judging at it's finest.

[The-Storm]

I don't like 10-10 rounds either

Me personally, when I encounter a situation where damn...nobody made a statement in this round, I almost always give the round to whoever is the champion. Call it lazy, but I suppose I'm just at the mindset that its the challenger's job to take that title, and if its a 10-10 affair, then in my mind, the challenger didn't do his job, therefore the round goes to the champion.

I think a majority of officiating issues could be resolved if judges are at a different vantage point. Their point of view is extremely limited and they're not seeing a fight from the angle as say fans watching. They have both the best and worst seats in the house to do their job.

I like that fights are scored in real time.No replay, no TV.They have the best seat in the house to do their job.There is nothing better then watching a fight live.

[JmH Reborn]

Thanks for the lengthy answer. I personally don't mind a 10-10 round and don't buy into the "whoevers champ and/or favored" stuff. The job of a judge is to be impartial. The popularity/previous achievements of a boxer should play no part in saying who won or lost a round and should only be judged as the rules state. But you are totally right, see my original post, judging should have better guidelines as to what to look for in a fight, at least that way boxers know what they have to do to win! Far too subjective. I got Trout tonight by TKO or UD, I think he will outclass Canelo but nobody knows, thats what makes it a great match up!

I think its hard and nearly impossible to be totally impartial in this life. Who's to say that Byrd absolutely loves Trout to the point that she scored a much closer Cotto/Trout fight as being 11-1 for Trout as opposed to a 7-5, 8-4 it should have been?

What bothers me is that in boxing you have four general guidelines universally accepted, clean punches, effective aggression, defense and ring generalship.

But what do these four mean to you? What they mean to you could mean something else to me or someother person, there lies the problem. Defense for instance, are you looking for someone who completely makes the other guy miss wildly, or are you looking for someone who is able to block punches with his guard. Maybe from their angle, if a boxer has their back towards the judges, a blocked punch could force a boxer to move, how would the judges know if that's a clean punch.

Effective aggression, man is that so subjective. It implies it only favors a guy moving forward and throwing punches. Ring Generalship, another subjective goalpost; are you looking for a guy that cuts off a ring, or what about a guy like Rigo who can dictate to the other guy in which way he moves and at what time.

It's all a f**king a mess, and only one objective measure, which naturally should be weighted the most, clean punches. Being a judge is a thankless job

Like I said, the answer is to give them a better seat in the house, or even have them watch from a TV (with no showtime/hbo audio!)

[JmH Reborn]

I like that fights are scored in real time.No replay, no TV.They have the best seat in the house to do their job.There is nothing better then watching a fight live.

They don't have the best seats though, not to effectively judge. They're looking up at the action from one singular point. Looking down and from an angle that allows for them to see the whole ring is better.

Wasn't there a boxer or someone recently who said essentially the same thing and was going to try and fix it?

[bojangles1987]

I think its hard and nearly impossible to be totally impartial in this life. Who's to say that Byrd absolutely loves Trout to the point that she scored a much closer Cotto/Trout fight as being 11-1 for Trout as opposed to a 7-5, 8-4 it should have been?

What bothers me is that in boxing you have four general guidelines universally accepted, clean punches, effective aggression, defense and ring generalship.

But what do these four mean to you? What they mean to you could mean something else to me or someother person, there lies the problem. Defense for instance, are you looking for someone who completely makes the other guy miss wildly, or are you looking for someone who is able to block punches with his guard. Maybe from their angle, if a boxer has their back towards the judges, a blocked punch could force a boxer to move, how would the judges know if that's a clean punch.

Effective aggression, man is that so subjective. It implies it only favors a guy moving forward and throwing punches. Ring Generalship, another subjective goalpost; are you looking for a guy that cuts off a ring, or what about a guy like Rigo who can dictate to the other guy in which way he moves and at what time.

It's all a f**king a mess, and only one objective measure, which naturally should be weighted the most, clean punches. Being a judge is a thankless job

Like I said, the answer is to give them a better seat in the house, or even have them watch from a TV (with no showtime/hbo audio!)

You just highlighted the problem with boxing judging in general. Judging should not be that difficult. Boxing is a sport where two guys punch each other with the intent to hurt. You should be judging rounds based on who lands punches and hurts their opponent more. Defense and ring generalship and effective aggression are all a distant criteria compared to who is landing punches.

Otherwise you end up with Rios over Abril and Bradley over Pacquiao, and a judge with a 118-110 scorecard for Williams-Martinez. All are which are "justified" because the "winner" had effective aggression which wasn't effective or ring generalship that wasn't working.

[craigus1990]

They don't have the best seats though, not to effectively judge. They're looking up at the action from one singular point. Looking down and from an angle that allows for them to see the whole ring is better.

Wasn't there a boxer or someone recently who said essentially the same thing and was going to try and fix it?

Yeah it was Joe Cortez. The amount of times I've heard Lampley say "the judges don't have moniters like we do" and I'm thinking "well why the **** not?" lol.

[billeau2]

This thread was made a few weeks back I posted saying "She sounds like an idiot. She has been judging fights for a while and she can't give us one solid fact on how to judge a fight, instead opting for phrases such as "in my experience". It's as if there is no set standard on how to judge a fight and it just depends what one particular judge feels like. She proves this by saying "I never score 10 - 10"... notice the "I".... what the hell do you mean "I"... surely there should be one rule on how to score and judge fights that all officials abide to.... what a mickey mouse operation, it turns out judges make up their own rules of scoring dependent on their mood."

I agree she is one of many horrible judges but your critiscism is not valid. When experts discuss a topic they always distinguish between any "objective" notions and preferences, Its the way one conducts oneself as a professional.

For example, if you ask me about disarming a knife in a martial arts class I will generally tell you (objective) where the technique comes from I am applying, then I will tell you my own preferences/ idiocyncracies about the technique... Something like, "grabbing the knife hand by the wrist does not apply maximum leverage" (fact) "I don't mind grabbing the blade for leverage if it cannot cut" (preference).

[damit305]

I think its hard and nearly impossible to be totally impartial in this life. Who's to say that Byrd absolutely loves Trout to the point that she scored a much closer Cotto/Trout fight as being 11-1 for Trout as opposed to a 7-5, 8-4 it should have been?

What bothers me is that in boxing you have four general guidelines universally accepted, clean punches, effective aggression, defense and ring generalship.

But what do these four mean to you? What they mean to you could mean something else to me or someother person, there lies the problem. Defense for instance, are you looking for someone who completely makes the other guy miss wildly, or are you looking for someone who is able to block punches with his guard. Maybe from their angle, if a boxer has their back towards the judges, a blocked punch could force a boxer to move, how would the judges know if that's a clean punch.

Effective aggression, man is that so subjective. It implies it only favors a guy moving forward and throwing punches. Ring Generalship, another subjective goalpost; are you looking for a guy that cuts off a ring, or what about a guy like Rigo who can dictate to the other guy in which way he moves and at what time.

It's all a f**king a mess, and only one objective measure, which naturally should be weighted the most, clean punches. Being a judge is a thankless job

Like I said, the answer is to give them a better seat in the house, or even have them watch from a TV (with no showtime/hbo audio!)

You make decent points. There definitely should be a more stringent code for judging but it gets back to subjectivity like you say.

Some might like certain aspects of a fighters game than others. But the whole notion that you have to "take it from the popular guy" is a bunch of bool-shate. That idea gets abused way too much.

It comes down to who would you rather be. It's well understood that we have to take in account the 'supposed' principles of judging. In the end who would you rather be "that night". Let's set aside promotional agendas.

Campillo or Trout

Lara or Williams

Rios or Abril

?

There are many other examples of nightmarish scoring.

I believe Canelo will pull it off tonight, but wouldn't be surprised if Trout takes it. Let's not allow popularity contests, personal bias and a 'cranberry vodka' inhibit our decision making...