Tweet
This is taken from an article on ESB. It is a very interesting perspective that I think may be true about judging in general in boxing....
Charles O. (St. Louis, MO): Judge C.J. Ross has been one of the most suspect judges in the history of the sport when you look at her resume and how she scored over 90% of her marquee fights. What do you think is really the deal with this problem in the sport and how do you think it can be addressed?
Vivek W. (ESB): I’ve long felt that there’s a secret code to boxing officiating once you get behind the lines. A code of silence that few know, and even fewer give thought to truly understanding. When you look at the way officiating has been handled over the course of time in the sport, there are certain inconsistencies with a very consistent logic. My personal theory falls somewhere square between two angles. Which one actually holds weight? Possibly neither. But I have no doubt that there are 3 officials chosen for three specific purposes each major fight. Many of us who follow the sport intensely can validate that there’s never a case of bad officiating for a fight that has no value.
Borderline fans can’t relate. But if you’ve sat at as many fight cards as those of us who actually dedicate ourselves to this craft, you can attest that there is never a wide swing margin on the cards in a fight that means nothing. Yet when there’s something major on the line, things change. Now, that doesn’t mean it has to be a televised fight. There have been times when a young stud on the rise had a close call and the powers-that-be kept his record clean as well. But more often than not, if it’s a meaningless fight, you’re bound to get a call straight down the middle.
In one theory I’ve long considered, you have a judge who leans toward the house fighter (or champ), giving him the benefit of the doubt in all close rounds. A judge who leans in favor of the non-house fighter, giving him a slight benefit of the doubt. And a judge who’s main assignment is to serve as a wrench, tying things up down the middle with the same score. The other theory has one judge who shows affinity to the effective aggressor. One who shows affinity to the cleaner puncher. And a third judge who again serves as the wrench, tying things up in a fight that’s even remotely close. Some would laugh at this logic, but C.J. Ross’ past history falls completely in line with such theories.
This fight followed that trend, with one judge scoring a wide margin for Mayweather, the other giving as many “benefit of the doubt” rounds as fundamentally possible to Canelo, and Ross, who scored properly over the first 6, yet later tilted her card to balance things out in the end by scoring 4 of the final 5 rounds for Canelo. A quick glimpse at her credentials on boxrec.com shows at least 10 fights where she has gone totally against the grain, giving the nod to a fighter who lost decisively; or locking up results, forcing a draw. Many have referenced the Pacquiao/Bradley score she pledged as her defining moment. But a closer look identified a slew of other fights she botched.
Of the 10 or so examples posted on boxrec, each of the other judges scored practically all of the fights by margins of anywhere from 4 to 6 points a piece in favor of the better fighter. Without question, there’s something behind the scenes going on in these fights that isn’t healthy, and it baffles me how this continues to happen. It just goes to show exactly what a joke the inner-workings of this sport truly is. One could never get away with this in the NBA, NFL, or MLB leagues, consistently. I think it’s sad, and I think this is a woman who lacks moral fiber. It’s a sad day in the sport when a judge accomplishes the feat of being both a “judge” and a “criminal” in one simultaneous motion.
What’s even sadder is that the NSAC leader, Keith Kizer, went public stating that she “was shocked” to learn she was the one who scored it a draw. According to Kizer, “good judges don’t keep a tab on their scores throughout the fight”. How she felt Mayweather won without question, yet scored it a draw is beyond me. I can understand the first few feel out rounds. But anything beyond the first 3 was a clear grasp for straws! And even those weren’t close. This tells me it was a bona fide tilt aimed at playing the role of the “wrench” in the end. She needs to be banned. It was an absolute disgrace. And so is she.
Charles O. (St. Louis, MO): Judge C.J. Ross has been one of the most suspect judges in the history of the sport when you look at her resume and how she scored over 90% of her marquee fights. What do you think is really the deal with this problem in the sport and how do you think it can be addressed?
Vivek W. (ESB): I’ve long felt that there’s a secret code to boxing officiating once you get behind the lines. A code of silence that few know, and even fewer give thought to truly understanding. When you look at the way officiating has been handled over the course of time in the sport, there are certain inconsistencies with a very consistent logic. My personal theory falls somewhere square between two angles. Which one actually holds weight? Possibly neither. But I have no doubt that there are 3 officials chosen for three specific purposes each major fight. Many of us who follow the sport intensely can validate that there’s never a case of bad officiating for a fight that has no value.
Borderline fans can’t relate. But if you’ve sat at as many fight cards as those of us who actually dedicate ourselves to this craft, you can attest that there is never a wide swing margin on the cards in a fight that means nothing. Yet when there’s something major on the line, things change. Now, that doesn’t mean it has to be a televised fight. There have been times when a young stud on the rise had a close call and the powers-that-be kept his record clean as well. But more often than not, if it’s a meaningless fight, you’re bound to get a call straight down the middle.
In one theory I’ve long considered, you have a judge who leans toward the house fighter (or champ), giving him the benefit of the doubt in all close rounds. A judge who leans in favor of the non-house fighter, giving him a slight benefit of the doubt. And a judge who’s main assignment is to serve as a wrench, tying things up down the middle with the same score. The other theory has one judge who shows affinity to the effective aggressor. One who shows affinity to the cleaner puncher. And a third judge who again serves as the wrench, tying things up in a fight that’s even remotely close. Some would laugh at this logic, but C.J. Ross’ past history falls completely in line with such theories.
This fight followed that trend, with one judge scoring a wide margin for Mayweather, the other giving as many “benefit of the doubt” rounds as fundamentally possible to Canelo, and Ross, who scored properly over the first 6, yet later tilted her card to balance things out in the end by scoring 4 of the final 5 rounds for Canelo. A quick glimpse at her credentials on boxrec.com shows at least 10 fights where she has gone totally against the grain, giving the nod to a fighter who lost decisively; or locking up results, forcing a draw. Many have referenced the Pacquiao/Bradley score she pledged as her defining moment. But a closer look identified a slew of other fights she botched.
Of the 10 or so examples posted on boxrec, each of the other judges scored practically all of the fights by margins of anywhere from 4 to 6 points a piece in favor of the better fighter. Without question, there’s something behind the scenes going on in these fights that isn’t healthy, and it baffles me how this continues to happen. It just goes to show exactly what a joke the inner-workings of this sport truly is. One could never get away with this in the NBA, NFL, or MLB leagues, consistently. I think it’s sad, and I think this is a woman who lacks moral fiber. It’s a sad day in the sport when a judge accomplishes the feat of being both a “judge” and a “criminal” in one simultaneous motion.
What’s even sadder is that the NSAC leader, Keith Kizer, went public stating that she “was shocked” to learn she was the one who scored it a draw. According to Kizer, “good judges don’t keep a tab on their scores throughout the fight”. How she felt Mayweather won without question, yet scored it a draw is beyond me. I can understand the first few feel out rounds. But anything beyond the first 3 was a clear grasp for straws! And even those weren’t close. This tells me it was a bona fide tilt aimed at playing the role of the “wrench” in the end. She needs to be banned. It was an absolute disgrace. And so is she.
Comment