How many more bad decisions till we take a stand??

[bluzi]

psssh first off you need a valid argument, you dont have one.

You critizing judges because of their score cards and point out how they never boxed before well so havent you so what makes your opinion more valid than theirs who are trained and tested to score fights professionally?

2nd nothing will never change cause motherfuckers cant keep it real for shit. (including professional boxers)

Everyone are on different teams, agendas etc etc, Half the fans think the decisions is wrong the other half think the decision is right and heres where your "judges never boxed before so they dont know" bs falls apart cause not even Professional boxers agree on decisions, some pros think x figthers won some think x fighters lost and thats cause NO ONE CAN KEEP IT REAL! everyone on different teams some are unspoken teams (race), some promotional, some have jobs on networks, etc etc.

Take for instance Paulie Mallangi who swore up and down that Al Haymon was the devil and boxing needed to get rid of him, al haymon hires him and now Paulie Swears Al haymon is the best thing to happen for boxing.

Nothing will never change, cause it cant change, theirs nothing wrong with the way the sport is setup. Its all subjective. Take a look at my thread about the Shawn Porter slip where everyone had different opinions about it although we all literally seen the same thing. https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=808905

and it was a rare thread where everyone basically jsut discussed the topic at hand and everyone had different opinions on it. Thats boxing, theirs the criteria to score a fight but everyone gonna see through their own eyes.

You are very sure of yourself for someone who doesn't seem to grasp the issue , saying that there is nothing wrong with the way the sport is setup is some delusional statement if I ever saw one.
The fact that the judges scorecards are influenced by the promoter is a big drawback , the fact that a certain judge/ref can be "picked" or "blocked" from being in a fight is detrimental to the quality of their work.
If I knew that Hearn will want me to be a ref or a judge in his "shows" I will be biased towards him.
But for example like premier league soccer (or NBA or whatever), if we had a pool of judges/refs and the event promoter has no saying on who judges/ref`s (in know it supposed to be like this ,but its never the case) I would expect a large portion of the bias to go away.
Subjective is OK and there are cases where people won't agree , like a foul call in a basketball game , but when all the whistles are going the Warriors way you know something is wrong.
TLDR - Boxing can do much better in regards to the ref/judges situation which currently ends up with unreal results way too often.

Also I see later on that you getting very personal with the OP , it seems like you are getting very emotional as Spence vs Mikey fight Is upon us , please don't get a nervous breakdown and be here after the Mikey beatdown , for the record I HOPE MIKEY PULLS IT OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.

[MDPopescu]

.. I still remember the mobsters/mafiosi owning/controlling the sport following the WWII...

[HURTFEELINGS]

Fans should stop crying robbery after every close fight then. They're like the boy that cried wolf. When there's a real robbery, it doesn't get the attention it should because everybody cries robbery every weekend no matter what.

i didnt know there where close fights? its always a robbery when their fighter doesnt win

[deathofaclown]

Decisions that could go either way, but in reality they go only one way all the time. Too damn easy to predict who's going to get favorable decision

exactly.

This is partly why i've fallen out of love with the sport a bit.

I honestly would've bet my house on Porter getting that decision on Saturday and not broken a sweat waiting for the decision. I could say the same for many other fights too.

It's all so predictable.

[HURTFEELINGS]

We cant trust AMERICANS, LOOK WHO they elected

[boliodogs]

Take any stand you want. It won't change anything. There is not a damn thing anybody reading this can do about it. If you think there is you are just kidding yourself and wasting time and energy for nothing.

[The Big Dunn]

We all need to come togather for the sport we love and show these corrupt motha****as we ain’t standing for it no more! These fighters lay their lives on the line and the sport needs to grow some damn integrity

I’m suggesting we go to press confrencess mocking judges, officials, commissions, stop showing up to live events and if we do we cuss out judges from the rip. We also need to push a qualified judge job search I wouldn’t get hired in any field if I never done it but these judges never boxed and get to judge a fight it’s insanity.

Bottom line The only way we solve this problem is if we all come togather.

You make a great suggestion. I think it would work but people have to be outraged at all bad scoring decisions, not just the ones where their guy gets a bad decision. They also have to be equally outraged regardless of the platform the fight is broadcast on or the nationality of the boxer that receives the bad scoring.

That stated, I think a bad decision shouldn't ruin a great fight. I may have disagreed with The Fury.Wilder scoring or the Charlo/Harrison scoring but I didn't let that change how I felt about watching 2 really good fights.

[Granath]

I disagree with the experts, therefore the experts are wrong.

That's essentially the premise here. It's not a particularly strong one. Are there bad judges out there? Sure. Are there bad decisions. Absolutely. Adalaide Byrd shouldn't judge an eating contest. We have to allow for that.

But largely the problem isn't with the judging. I honestly don't think some vocal fans here actually understand how to judge a round. They confuse activity for clean effective punching. They confuse theatrics for ring generalship. They confuse strategy with inaction.

But in quite a few recent cases here there's a lot of *****ing and moaning when people's personal favorites didn't win. Yet when asked to show how they dominated or commanded the fight they can't do it. They just repeat the same thing over and over about how they re-watched the fight and re-scored it. Really? That's proof? Should we expect anything different the second time around? Nah.

Fights are won or loss largely on clean effective punching. That's the metric that surpasses any other. If you can't make a claim on that basis you can't really make a legitimate claim. It gets murky fast after that. One man's Ring Generalship for being the aggressor is the other man's defensive bonus for blocking the shots of the aggressor. While there are strong guidelines it gets pretty subjective pretty fast.

For instance, let's take Fury / Wilder. 12 punches separated those two guys and Fury was knocked down twice. Fury's antics didn't score points no matter how much someone likes them. Porter/Ugas? Porter landed more than Ugas, who got away from the jab and therefore let the bout get away from him. Either one of those bouts could have gone either way because none of the guys in them established dominance. What we see is that those who were predisposed to like a guy - or worse, dislike the other - are the very same ones who generally decry the decision. I can watch each of those fights and see how a judge could give either guy the win by a round or two. If I were predisposed to reward a particular aspect of a fighter in the ring (aggression, defense, theatrics, scowling), that disparity jumps to 4-5 rounds. But I don't see either of those as being particularly controversial decisions. When you out-score your opponent by 100 punches then we'll talk.

So to me the more controversial would be decisions like Pac v Horn, where Pac outlanded Horn 2 to 1. Or GGG/Canelo 1, where GGG outlanded Canelo by 60 and was coming forward most of the fight. There's an argument to be made about he clean, effective punching of the guys who probably should have won. But in most cases I find that the cry of bad judging around here is just a way to mask "my guy didn't win".

[satiev1]

What fight are you talking about?

[A.K]

I disagree with the experts, therefore the experts are wrong.

That's essentially the premise here. It's not a particularly strong one. Are there bad judges out there? Sure. Are there bad decisions. Absolutely. Adalaide Byrd shouldn't judge an eating contest. We have to allow for that.

But largely the problem isn't with the judging. I honestly don't think some vocal fans here actually understand how to judge a round. They confuse activity for clean effective punching. They confuse theatrics for ring generalship. They confuse strategy with inaction.

But in quite a few recent cases here there's a lot of *****ing and moaning when people's personal favorites didn't win. Yet when asked to show how they dominated or commanded the fight they can't do it. They just repeat the same thing over and over about how they re-watched the fight and re-scored it. Really? That's proof? Should we expect anything different the second time around? Nah.

Fights are won or loss largely on clean effective punching. That's the metric that surpasses any other. If you can't make a claim on that basis you can't really make a legitimate claim. It gets murky fast after that. One man's Ring Generalship for being the aggressor is the other man's defensive bonus for blocking the shots of the aggressor. While there are strong guidelines it gets pretty subjective pretty fast.

For instance, let's take Fury / Wilder. 12 punches separated those two guys and Fury was knocked down twice. Fury's antics didn't score points no matter how much someone likes them. Porter/Ugas? Porter landed more than Ugas, who got away from the jab and therefore let the bout get away from him. Either one of those bouts could have gone either way because none of the guys in them established dominance. What we see is that those who were predisposed to like a guy - or worse, dislike the other - are the very same ones who generally decry the decision. I can watch each of those fights and see how a judge could give either guy the win by a round or two. If I were predisposed to reward a particular aspect of a fighter in the ring (aggression, defense, theatrics, scowling), that disparity jumps to 4-5 rounds. But I don't see either of those as being particularly controversial decisions. When you out-score your opponent by 100 punches then we'll talk.

So to me the more controversial would be decisions like Pac v Horn, where Pac outlanded Horn 2 to 1. Or GGG/Canelo 1, where GGG outlanded Canelo by 60 and was coming forward most of the fight. There's an argument to be made about he clean, effective punching of the guys who probably should have won. But in most cases I find that the cry of bad judging around here is just a way to mask "my guy didn't win".

See that’s the problem I can watch fights and know the winner I don’t see it going either way that should never happen that’s like saying the chiefs should of beat the pats BUT THEY DIDNT and it falls to my point that this sport has no integrity.