When the judging is criminal, the refereeing is just as Scandalous

I'm sure you all agree there are many areas of boxing that could do with being cleaned up. From the dizzy amounts of belts now on offer in each weight class to the issues over illegal drugs being used to gain an unfair advantage.

For this post I would like to focus on the corruption aspect of the game that still goes on to this day with the judges and referees. Though we can forgive slight hometown advantage, there comes a point in a contest that one of the fighters has no chance of winning. We've seen plenty of examples over the past with the Sven Ottke's of this world to the first heavyweight clash between Lewis/Holyfield. Even now, whether domestically or abroad, we still have regular discussion about robberies going on in boxing.

Why, we only have to look at the upcoming fixture between Ward/Froch. We all know Ward is being groomed as the next American darling, so he seems to have all the TV/Media backing, and we expect Froch will have to win rounds convincingly just to have a chance in taking them. Close rounds will go to Ward.

Money is always the driver, but if you had the power to change things in boxing around this, what would you do? Specifically in today's world what do you think would actually work? Personally, I find it very hard to think of realistic solutions to the problem due to the money/power involved at the top with promoters and the TV/Media.

I dont really agree with the Ward example. He seems to be getting a reputation as some kind of hometown robber but so far he has won all his fights convincingly. If Froch gets robbed, fair enough we can talk about it then, but until Ward actually does rob someone I think its unfair to represent him in such a way. He isnt box office for me so I dont think people are trying manufacture him. The very fact he is even the Super Six shows that they are prepared to take serious risks.

Ive often thought about ways to try and improve judging but there isnt an obvious solution to such a subjective method. Having experienced watching fights live and then subsequently on tv I appreciate the impat the crowd or location can have so I have often wondered if one of the three judges or even an additional judge should watch the fight as its presented on tv just for a different perspective and to be isolated from the crowd. Obviously this would work for all fights that are not televised but some kind of control judge for big televised fights might be worth exploring. I also think refs and judges should always be neutral nationality to the fighters involved to remove any stigma of favouritism whether its real or imagined.

Follow a UFC - and other elite sports for that matter- type format where the start names are under one banner, and are required to fight the best around them. With a universally acknowledged world number one, with perhaps regional divisions to start with working up to nationals, contintents/interncontinental then worlds. Then elite fighters fight more often against better/more equal level of opposition or are penalised/demoted as a result.

Ofcourse this is pure fantasy, as the parties involved are quite happy as they are with a disjointed, disorganised sport that allows a whole host of people to make a pile of cash.

If you had billions you could buy out the respective parties, but this would be way too expensive.

It's a shame though, as if all global boxing commissions came under one banner, there would be universal rules, tests, proceedures, funding etc.

Never happen though.

I never quite the UFC example, because by nature it itself is just a fragment organisation. You have Strikeforce, Pride, CageRage etc who are all different organistations. In UFC the the best may face the best but only internally in one organistation. I only follow UFC passingly so Im no expert on it but for example was Fedor Emelienko not widely considered the top heavyweight for years but he never fought in UFC? How does the UFC heavyweight champion maintain his credibility in that circumstance?

I understand that its considered the top competition and houses the most top fighters but it seems to me little different to boxing where worldwide there are a number of recognised champions in each weight class in different organisations and the independant rankings like Sherdog are done on a common sense basis like is done with Ring Magazine in boxing.

manos de piedra wrote:I never quite the UFC example, because by nature it itself is just a fragment organisation. You have Strikeforce, Pride, CageRage etc who are all different organistations. In UFC the the best may face the best but only internally in one organistation. I only follow UFC passingly so Im no expert on it but for example was Fedor Emelienko not widely considered the top heavyweight for years but he never fought in UFC? How does the UFC heavyweight champion maintain his credibility in that circumstance?

I understand that its considered the top competition and houses the most top fighters but it seems to me little different to boxing where worldwide there are a number of recognised champions in each weight class in different organisations and the independant rankings like Sherdog are done on a common sense basis like is done with Ring Magazine in boxing.

Precisely. It's like saying all the best Top Rank fighters face the best Top Rank fighters, or with Goldenboy.

Why did Mosley get the decision over Oscar twice if money is always the driver.....

not just the ref and the judges, Frank Warrens favourite friend is often the ringside doctor. Khan Barrera was ridiculous, you cant tell me the doctor didnt know his role

Lance wrote:not just the ref and the judges, Frank Warrens favourite friend is often the ringside doctor. Khan Barrera was ridiculous, you cant tell me the doctor didnt know his role

i know god such a tough fight aswell... i mean khans back was well and truly up against it, there was a round where i think khan actually took a punch!

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Lance wrote:not just the ref and the judges, Frank Warrens favourite friend is often the ringside doctor. Khan Barrera was ridiculous, you cant tell me the doctor didnt know his role

i know god such a tough fight aswell... i mean khans back was well and truly up against it, there was a round where i think khan actually took a punch!

yes but if the doctor had waved it off a round earlier??? then we would have had a technical draw. did the cut get any worse between round 4 and 5? or did he know to let it go long enough for khan to get the win.

or the most important question who cares?

AlexHuckerby wrote:or the most important question who cares?

so why respond?