Comments Thread For: HBO's Lederman Says TV Viewpoint Isn't The Best For Judging

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

By Lyle Fitzsimmons - It's perpetual grist for the 140-character mill. Regardless of the fighters involved, the titles up for grabs or the networks doing the broadcasts, a near certainty about a Saturday is that someone on social media is going to be griping about a scorecard. It was no different this past weekend, when -- in spite of Ruslan Provodnikov's concession that he'd been fairly...
[Click Here To Read More]

[jdp28tx]

One would think Lederman is losing it. TV gives a 360 degree view and as he complains about people at home only get to watch what the director shows us. Well since it is a sporting event the director has no choice but to show the audience only the fight. It is not like the director is going to cut to the dressing room and show a fight between promoters like it is "wrastling".

TV gives a better view period, there is no blind spots like watching it live has.

[LoadedWraps]

One would think Lederman is losing it. TV gives a 360 degree view and as he complains about people at home only get to watch what the director shows us. Well since it is a sporting event the director has no choice but to show the audience only the fight. It is not like the director is going to cut to the dressing room and show a fight between promoters like it is "wrastling".

TV gives a better view period, there is no blind spots like watching it live has.

Not necessarily true, sometimes yes the tv view has better angles, and the advantage is that you can change angles for the viewer faster than you can walk around the ring, but ringside, you are much more aware of damage, stamina, speed, and things of that nature. Depending on the camera and network from home, you can't always tell accurately when punches really affect a fighter, when they do damage, ringside you appreciate the brutality, the work, the action on a much more visceral level.

[Shadoww702]

Not necessarily true, sometimes yes the tv view has better angles, and the advantage is that you can change angles for the viewer faster than you can walk around the ring, but ringside, you are much more aware of damage, stamina, speed, and things of that nature. Depending on the camera and network from home, you can't always tell accurately when punches really affect a fighter, when they do damage, ringside you appreciate the brutality, the work, the action on a much more visceral level.

Yup. Case in point. Lara vs. Canelo

If you were close enough you could feel the ring shake when Canelo landed his body blows. And in between rounds you could see the body shots were CLEARLY hurting Lara. But when you watch it on TV. It doesn't look as bad and they don't always show fighters in between rounds getting their corner to work on them.

[SP4RTICUS]

There's also a psychological barrier, where you only look at one fighter throwing at a time.
People tend to concentrate more on their fighter, which causes the bias.
I quite often find myself watching the fighter throwing, and miss the counters, until i watch the replay, and realise none of the flurry landed, but the counter did.
The Judges should have the benefit of replays during the break, so they get the best of both. In this day of technology it could be done in seconds with 5 highlights per round. Or like the amateurs have a second judging panel in a sealed vault with tvs only and give their total to one of the judges, vs the 2 at ringside.

[daggum]

its best to just watch it with your eyes closed. that way your favorite fighter is always the winner

[Ake-Dawg]

The Judges should have the benefit of replays during the break, so they get the best of both. In this day of technology it could be done in seconds with 5 highlights per round.

No replay. It will only introduce uncertainty. To question others perspectives is human. It makes for great debate. I'm all for better judging, but technology isn't the answer.

[- Ram Raid -]

Fair play to the man. He's passionate about the sport and he's carved out a wonderful career for himself. But those last comments . . . :

“No. Never. I’m always right,” he said. “If I don’t agree with the judges, I say to myself, ‘They’re wrong, I’m right.’ That’s how I feel about it. I also feel like your first score is your best score.

“If you’re scoring a fight, don’t go home and watch it on TV and say, ‘Well, I scored Round 7 differently on TV.’ No. Your best score is your first score, all the time. I don’t know why but that’s just the way it is. If you score it again, deep down in your mind you’ll know how it came out and that influences your thinking.”

. . . highlight for me how he can sometimes be quite dogmatic and inflexible with his scoring criteria. He puts an overemphasis on aggression whether its effective or not and often scores rounds based on what's preceded it rather than scoring the round in and of itself.

That last comment is nonsense of course. He can't help but rescore fights when he watches them back, and he can't help but watch them back because he's a boxing fan. In shielding himself from the acknowledgement that he may have scored rounds incorrectly he's shutting down any opportunity for improvement which is why he still carries those flaws, as I see them.

I largely agree with his comments on watching it live as apposed to on televsion and LoadedWraps post explains the difference beautifully. I wouldn't go as far as agreeing with Harold's statement that you're seeing the fight as it really is though, as if its an entirely objective affair. Reading the fight is always influenced by the personal and cultural preferences and biases that we bring to it. Being involved in the spectacle throws up another set of influences as well. With that said, watching rindside does bring things into awareness that isn't captured through the camera lense.

[- Ram Raid -]

There's also a psychological barrier, where you only look at one fighter throwing at a time.
People tend to concentrate more on their fighter, which causes the bias.

Good point, and as fans we can acknowledge that readily. Although it's something that judges clearly do, and often (either that or there's more corruption than we care to admit) they're loath to admit it in case it chips away at this fallacy that they can remain completely objective.

For me that's an impossibility and the only way to get as close as we can to objectivity is to acknowledge and keep in mind our own biases as a way of attempting to negate them.

[Liondw]

Most would say Norton beat Ali in 2 out of the 3 fights. It is tough to score from tv at times, as you can't always see if the blows landed cleanly. Also, there are commentators that are very biased, and it can influence your viewing. Other controversially scored fights were Hagler-Leonard, De La Hoya-Whitaker and De La Hoya-Quartey.