Hometown fighters - ruining boxing?

I've been watching boxing now for many years with great interest. I've been in and out of various boxing forums, the old 606 etc and now find myself here, as it seems this is where the majority of the posters from 606 landed, so hello!

Anyway, my question

It really has started to bother me - much more recently than over the years about how fighting in an opponents backyard is a problem. It seems shameful to me that it doesn't matter what the opponent does, if he's got the backing of the crowd then the "impartial" judges give him the nod, despite his performance? Who does this benefit? The sport is robbed of a decision that would propel the better quality fighter, the sport would retain its credibility for being impartial and the loser would have to decide whether to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and fight again but come back better, or fade away on their failure, undeserving of being part of boxing.

Personally I feel it should be the other way around. If a boxer goes into "the lions den" as it were, and fights hard, against not only a hostile crowd - but a potentially biased referee, then they should get the nod as its obvious that if it were that close to go to the scorecards, then the one with the most pressure upon them is the better athlete rather than the boxer who has the support and protection of his home territory?

I think its ruining boxing. These decisions should be made away from the fight - via satellite/video footage and should be from ex-boxers/trainers who actually understand the sport and whats required of the boxers in the fight. Not people loosely affiliated with the sport.

Rant over!

Welcome aboard, JabMachine.

I'm sure most of us share your need to ' rant ' about this issue. It's been there, to some extent, right back to the dawn of the Queensbury era but it seems to have reached epidemic levels, lately.

Terrible blight on the sport.

Good read and i completely agree. I have seen a few fights over the years where the "home fighter" is given a "W" even though many of the us public and pundits have it the opposite way. A few fights that spring to mind are:

Alexander vs Matthyse - Alexander somehow won, i have NO IDEA how.
Froch vs Direll - Could have gone either way but experts had Direll up by 3-4
Felix Sturm vs Anyone - The guy could be hit wih a bat and he would still win a UD.

Those are just a few that spring to mind. The most recent fight that almost made me want to stop watching boxing because of the corupt system was the Pacquiao vs Marquez fight. Now im a pacman fan, a massive one, but i thought in that latest fight he was outboxed from round 1. He may have landed more on compubox but we all know that dont win fights. The most eye-catching work was by marquez who seemed to neutralize pacquaios right hand and get right hands landing himself. I had it 116-112 for Marquez and that was being generous to Pacman (I was biased anyway!). But when they read the score cards and pacquiao had won, i was disgusted. I watched Pacquiao then say he deserved to win, then i saw Bob Arum, i then put two and two together and went to bed before i smashed my television in.

In fact, i bet Sturm will be undefeated in Germany for the next 10000 years. Even if he is buried under the ring when he dies in 60 years or whatever, they could probably still get a show on, have a random boxer shadow box in the ring infront of 16000 germans, and he would actually still win. The crowds cheering everytime the shadow boxer fails to connect with Sturm under the ring will surely swing the judges towards the local hero.

Sturm possibly deserved to beat Oscar, Macklin/Murray were close fights not robberies.

Agree with most of what you've put, d26, but not so sure I'd agree with Sturm. I think there's been a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to him due to the Macklin fight. All of a sudden he's been lumped in with Ottke as an incredibly overprotected, stay-at-home fighter, which isn't true.

If anything, I thought he was unlucky to not be declared the winner against Murray the other night. Had him winning 115-113. I think he was harshly treated against Oscar, too. If I remember my scorecard right, I had him 116-113 up there as well.

I admit that I did have Macklin beating him by a couple of points, but it was too close to call it a robbery.

My main issues are with the European/smalltown America mentalities - who fight in their home countries and get the decision because it will help them fight bigger opponents in the long run. These boxers haven't deserved it.

Look at Helenius vs Chisora. That was a farce. Helenius is being built to be the next big heavyweight, so why protect him by giving him the decision vs Chisora when he was soundly beaten? Surely he should build himself by being the best?

I don't believe if fights are "close" then they can ever be described as robberies, but if judged properly OUTSIDE of the arena via video footage, compubox etc then the right result will prevail regardless.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Hometown decisions have been going on since boxing began. UK has had its fair share of dubious decisions. That Towers HW bloke who fought an American called Paige (or Page). How he got the decision only the ref knows. Even the winner thought he was lucky to get the decision. In his next fight he was KO'd in 2 by Price.

Tis not hometown fighters than are ruining boxing it is the hometown decisions.

If a fighter gets to winning a title it's to be expected he fights mostly at home as that's where he'll get his most fans, sell most tickets and make most money.

It's the fact that wins go to the homeboy even if they've clearly lost that really winds me up. There's been loads of robberies lately that if we don't act we'll become desensitised to it!

There is an issue surrounding fights in countries where they still love the sport - ie - Germany and Finland. Every time the home fighter throws a punch - even if it hits hands/air - the crowd scream - the judges hear it and they are influenced.

They need to be in a sealed container (with air holes) - but away from the noise of the crowd for fairness.

If Floyd fought Pacquiao in Manila - Floyd would have to make Manny miss by at least a foot with every punch he threw - otherwise they'd score because of crowd noise.

oxring wrote:There is an issue surrounding fights in countries where they still love the sport - ie - Germany and Finland. Every time the home fighter throws a punch - even if it hits hands/air - the crowd scream - the judges hear it and they are influenced.

They need to be in a sealed container (with air holes) - but away from the noise of the crowd for fairness.

If Floyd fought Pacquiao in Manila - Floyd would have to make Manny miss by at least a foot with every punch he threw - otherwise they'd score because of crowd noise.

I don't believe it's that. You score with your eyes not your ears. If I was in that stadium I'd have scored it to Chisora. It's more sinister than that.

I thought Helenius looked awful in Finland surrounded by walls of noise cheering for him.

I wish I believed your theory was the case but have never experienced it.

It pains me to say it but for once Ox is correct. The crowd screaming does influence judges. What they are supposed to do and what they actually do are often poles apart.

azania wrote:It pains me to say it but for once Ox is correct. The crowd screaming does influence judges. What they are supposed to do and what they actually do are often poles apart.

If it did I'd have had Froch-Pascal a shutout. In reality I had it the same in the arena and on TV.

Khan-McCloskey was one of the noisiest crowds I've been in. When Khan went in with his flurries I said to my mate 'He's not really landing much though'. He agreed. I didn't exactly have ringside seats.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:It pains me to say it but for once Ox is correct. The crowd screaming does influence judges. What they are supposed to do and what they actually do are often poles apart.

If it did I'd have had Froch-Pascal a shutout. In reality I had it the same in the arena and on TV.

Khan-McCloskey was one of the noisiest crowds I've been in. When Khan went in with his flurries I said to my mate 'He's not really landing much though'. He agreed. I didn't exactly have ringside seats.

Come on Scotty. Not every hometown decision is a robbery. Not all judges are influenced by the crowd. But to deny that it does happen is false.

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:It pains me to say it but for once Ox is correct. The crowd screaming does influence judges. What they are supposed to do and what they actually do are often poles apart.

If it did I'd have had Froch-Pascal a shutout. In reality I had it the same in the arena and on TV.

Khan-McCloskey was one of the noisiest crowds I've been in. When Khan went in with his flurries I said to my mate 'He's not really landing much though'. He agreed. I didn't exactly have ringside seats.

Come on Scotty. Not every hometown decision is a robbery. Not all judges are influenced by the crowd. But to deny that it does happen is false.

It might be a slight influence but it can never account for a robbery. No amount of noise makes you score that for Helenius. I'm speaking from being in very partisan crowds.

These guys have ringside seats and see hundreds of fights a year. Crowds will hardly influence their view at all. It doesn't influence mine and I'm not a pro.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:It pains me to say it but for once Ox is correct. The crowd screaming does influence judges. What they are supposed to do and what they actually do are often poles apart.

If it did I'd have had Froch-Pascal a shutout. In reality I had it the same in the arena and on TV.

Khan-McCloskey was one of the noisiest crowds I've been in. When Khan went in with his flurries I said to my mate 'He's not really landing much though'. He agreed. I didn't exactly have ringside seats.

Come on Scotty. Not every hometown decision is a robbery. Not all judges are influenced by the crowd. But to deny that it does happen is false.

It might be a slight influence but it can never account for a robbery. No amount of noise makes you score that for Helenius. I'm speaking from being in very partisan crowds.

These guys have ringside seats and see hundreds of fights a year. Crowds will hardly influence their view at all. It doesn't influence mine and I'm not a pro.

All it takes is a slight influence to give the hometown the rounds and thus the fight. I agree that the Helenius verdict was a robbery. I gave all close rounds to Helenius due to the hometown factor and still had Chisora winning by 3 rounds.

Do you think the judged had been nobbled?

azania wrote:Do you think the judged had been nobbled?

Of course. No doubt in my mind.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:Do you think the judged had been nobbled?

Of course. No doubt in my mind.

Does that apply toall hometown decisions and Ian John Lewis?

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:Do you think the judged had been nobbled?

Of course. No doubt in my mind.

Does that apply toall hometown decisions and Ian John Lewis?

No not all hometown decisions. This was one the guy who probably watches the most boxing in the world had Chisora winning 11 clear rounds and said even the card narrowly for Chisora was indefensible. It had the most one sided polls I've ever seen at the biggest boxing site. There wasn't a way to defensibly score 6 or more for Helenius.

I had Chis winning easy. But IJL has had some extremely dubious scores recently. Didn't he do something ridiculous in a recent prizefighter where he scored a round 10/10 even though one of the guys was decked? Also that LW fight a couple of weeks back where he scored for the guy who lost 13 rounds at least in a 12 round fight?

azania wrote:It pains me to say it but for once Ox is correct. The crowd screaming does influence judges. What they are supposed to do and what they actually do are often poles apart.

@Scott - Helenius a bit suspicious - however - Huck-Lebedev - a similar fight - where Huck's flurries hit Lebedev's arms and Lebedev's punches hit Huck's face. Huck also complained about a bad hand (if memory serves). The crowd screamed for Huck's "work". Huck won a distasteful decision.

Crowd noise affects judges. It shouldn't - but that's not what we're arguing.

Sven O vs anyone.

That's not a fact though. You don't know why the judges scored it that way. I'm saying I've been in partisan crowds and it makes little/no difference to your perception of the fight. For someone sitting ringside I'm sure it makes even less.

You get the same type of decisions for the home fighter in silent venues.

I think in close in fights, the crowd can have an impact and perhaps make a difference. Froch v Dirrell for example. Potential to go either way but the home factor favoured Froch.

However I dont believe that the crowd can have possibly influenced such a clear cut fight like the Chisora one. To me that was a set up. If the fight isnt close then the crowd becomes a non issue.

manos de piedra wrote:I think in close in fights, the crowd can have an impact and perhaps make a difference. Froch v Dirrell for example. Potential to go either way but the home factor favoured Froch.

However I dont believe that the crowd can have possibly influenced such a clear cut fight like the Chisora one. To me that was a set up. If the fight isnt close then the crowd becomes a non issue.

I'd go with that even though I believe the impact of the crowd is exaggerated. I think that particular fight was more to do with Froch being seen as the aggressor.

One of the fights I was at Henry Wharton v Fidel Castro Smith at Elland road Leeds,huge Wharton following,even Wharton's fans thought he had lost but he got it,awful decision.

My take on a fight is if its a clear cut robbery,as well as an automatic rematch, the judges in question should be made to sit down with the governing body who employed them, and go through the fight round by round and explain their scoring,if they can't then they're clearily not fit to judge and shouldn't be allowed to again.

For my "ibragimov article" - but relevant and interesting here: http://www.boxingscene.com/ibragimov-embraces-road-warrior-role-versus-mitchell--46904

The worst one I've seen in a while was actually in UK, Jamie Cox - disgraceful reffing and judging and a blatant bit of corruption. Shocking.

They are and they do ruin boxing, they have been happening for years though we just see them more on TV.