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

[Lomadeaux]

It took you 30 minutes to come up with this?

There will always be "huge stars in boxing," eh? What's this, a new conversation?

You're looking silly buddy. Boxing has been 'dying' for 100 years.

[A-Wolf]

You're looking silly buddy. Boxing has been 'dying' for 100 years.

Says the guy who's been getting clowned with every post.

And how many years have you been following this sport?

[Granath]

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.

With all due respect AK perhaps that means you really don't know the winner but rather you just want someone to be the winner. That's not an insult but simply human nature if you have a dog in the fight. How many times have we seen a trainer tell a boxer that he's up in a fight that he's clearly losing? It happens all the time. The trainer may be focused on his guy and not watching what the other guy is really doing. If the pros get it wrong like that, should we expect anything different from a fan?

Here's the thing. If the judges don't agree with you and the compubox statistics don't agree with you, the problem probably isn't with the judges and the statistics. It means you are judging the fight on criteria that (1) the judges didn't see and (2) the statistics don't bear out - and that's indicative of someone looking for a reason to award a particular fighter the win, not of the actual winner. That means you're in conflict with two (or three or four depending on the number of judges) data points. That means the outlier is you.

So here's my challenge. Watch any fight that's close on clean effective punching via compubox and try to figure HOW a judge could score the fight they way they did. If the judge is within a round or two of a draw and you can't figure it out, then the problem is probably with you because you're looking for scoring that doesn't really exist.

Let me take an example of a decision that I don't agree with: Leonard/Hagler. I still think Hagler won that fight. He landed the harder shots and was the aggressor the entire fight. But I can watch that fight and give SRL the edge by 2-3 rounds pretty easily if I award Leonard's movement as ring generalship over Hagler's aggression. Therefore I don't have a big issue with Dave Moretti (SRL) or Lou Filippo's (Hagler) cards. What I can't see is Jo Jo Guerra's surreal 118-110 but that's the point - that scorecard isn't borne out by the actual fight in the ring nor the statistics surrounding it.

So I can watch Fury/Wilder and give Wilder the fight by 2 points or Fury the fight by perhaps 3. A handful of punches as a differential and two knockdowns is going to cause that kind of swing. I can see Ugas/Porter by a couple of points either way. So even if I don't agree with those decisions at least I don't see them as egregious. They're both reasonable decisions because neither fighter in either fight truly took control and did what really, truly matters - out-punching the other guy.