How can we stop Robberies in boxing??

First topic message reminder :

It seems like there is a robbery every wek no in boxing and if a fighter is away from home he will get robbed. This has happened to so many British fighters in the last few weeks just ask Chisora, Khan, Macklin and Sturm and dont bet on Froch winning a decision against Ward!! And of course we all know how Lewis got robbed against Holyfield many years ago. They also say in boxing that you need a knock out just to get a draw in Germany and look at guys like Sturm and Ottke and Huck! So my question is how can we stop these robberies from happening?

In football and other sports they have neutral refs or judges so there is no bias. This should be in boxing too if you dont believe me look at the ref in the Hatton v Mayweather fight for example. Judges should be neutral too with no bias..

I things like the champions league they have home and away legs this could be an idea in some big boxing matches that there are two legs even if a fighter loses the first he has a rematch. Look at Haye against Wlad for example Haye had to fight in Germany maybe they could have had two matches one in Germany and one in England for such a big fight? This would not work in small fights though or ones where fighters are from the same country.

Maybe fight should be held in neutral countries so there is no bias from the crowds or officials? Look at the Super 6 Ward has every fight in America but Froch has had only one fight in Britain how is this fair? He fought Abraham in Finland which was neutral maybe they should have neutral for some big fights so there is no home advantage like in the final of the champions league?

They should also ban and suspend judges and refs who are biased and give hometown decision and these results should be changed. If the sport was fair they would have made Chisora the European champion why should Hellenius keep his belt when he got schooled?

If they did this there would be less robberies imo what other ideas do people have for getting rid of robberies in boxing?

There is a quote in the Boxing News report which suggests Helenius' promoter had it as a draw which is kind of instructive and suggesting the Finnish journalists ringside all had it for Chisora, obviously not having seen it can't get too wound up but am yet to see anyone who has called this one for Helenius.

I had it Chisora by two rounds myself, my point is it was a lot closer than all the people shouting "Robbery!" are making out.

Because you scored it with 'home advantage' rather than just scoring it.

Controversy creates cash.

A controversial decision usually ends in a rematch giving more money to both combantants.

Helenius was the title holder

I've never seen a commissions rule book where it states the challenger has to do more than the title holder.

Rounds don't get award because you're the title holder. If you win the fight you win the fight, you don't have to do "X" amount more because you're the challenger.

Silly comment.

Scottrf wrote:Because you scored it with 'home advantage' rather than just scoring it.

Give me a shout if you need a hand getting down mate.

Union Cane wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Because you scored it with 'home advantage' rather than just scoring it.

Give me a shout if you need a hand getting down mate.

I'm fine cheers.

Scottrf wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Because you scored it with 'home advantage' rather than just scoring it.

Give me a shout if you need a hand getting down mate.

I'm fine cheers.

Jolly good.

coxy0001 wrote:

Helenius was the title holder

I've never seen a commissions rule book where it states the challenger has to do more than the title holder.

Rounds don't get award because you're the title holder. If you win the fight you win the fight, you don't have to do "X" amount more because you're the challenger.

Silly comment.

Where did I say that it was in the rulebook?

It is more of a sub-conscious thing, which was clearly in the mind-set of the ringside judges, as illustrated by the scores they gave. And there is no definitive way to score a fight, that is why there are three judges.

If that's silly, then I'm guilty as charged.

manos de piedra wrote:A decent start might be to learn how to distinguish a close fight from a robbery. Murray, Macklin and Khan were not robbed. These were close fights capable of going either way.

You do have an uncanny ability to distill things down to one or two sentences, manos. This is absolutely bang on, in my opinion.

As to the actual scoring, I suppose we could dispense with the ten point must system and increase the amount of points allotted per round, working on the idea that a greater number of samples produces greater accuracy, etc. Judges could award, let's say, up to thirty points per round which would enable tolerances to be finer. The drawbacks, of course, are that it would require quite a feat of memory for a judge to remember why he scored, by way of example, round three 29 - 22 by the time he gets to the twelfth round, and also that no amount of tinkering with a system can ever legislate for out and out corruption.

As with most things, I suspect that treatment of the underlying disease is better than treatment of symptoms. Put boxing back onto a more credible platform, with fewer sanctioning organisations, better mainstream coverage, etc., etc., and the chances are that judging will improve or, at the very least, be better scrutinised.

All Time Great wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

All Time Great wrote:Just ignore split decisions. Most educated people know who was the real winner in a fight when the decision goes the wrong way(eg Mayweather vs Castillo, Chisora vs Helinus and Marquez vs Pacquiao). If a SD occurs, I feel an automatic rematch should be made pending on the defeated boxers choice.

I'm not too keen on that last bit.

What did Oscar do to bring Mayweather to Mexico for a rematch? An SD doesn't always favour the winner.

I think what I'm really trying to elude to is where there has been an out an out robbery the boxing commissions should demand the fight is rematched. Such as Lara vs Williams etc.

Quick English lesson for you, you only use "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant.

Off-topic response contained in spoiler.

Spoiler:

As for the topic, I would guess neutral judges and more accountability would be the most practical ways forward. Neutral venues would make it harder to sell tickets and could also make it harder to get fights made, I reckon.

nice one, teacher.

Il Gialloblu wrote:[spoiler]Not true, All Time Great.

Il Gialloblu KO1 ATG.

Think Manos may have got there before me, but surely the quickest way to reduce the number of 'robberies' in boxing is to stop calling every close fight 'a robbery'.

Put the judges in sound proof cubicles. But allowing a decision to be reversed after watching it again could be a way forward where the robbery is obvious. I recall Lewis v Holy R5 where the female judge gave it to Holy. Her reasoning was that her view was obstructed. Had she scored that round correctly, the Lewis would have won the first fight.

And ban Ian John Lewis.

Perhaps they should go old school and fight until the one of them quits!

two_tone wrote:Perhaps they should go old school and fight until the one of them quits!

Amen to that, never had these problems in John L Sullivan's day.

I've always though the score for each round should be made public at the start of the next round so that coaches in each corner and tv/media can clearly see who's winning.

kevchadders wrote:I've always though the score for each round should be made public at the start of the next round so that coaches in each corner and tv/media can clearly see who's winning.

Na. Doesn't work in amateur, didn't work in Vitali-Peter.

You could have boxrec ignore the official verdict and start awarding wins to the fighters that were was CLEARLY robbed.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

All Time Great wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

All Time Great wrote:Just ignore split decisions. Most educated people know who was the real winner in a fight when the decision goes the wrong way(eg Mayweather vs Castillo, Chisora vs Helinus and Marquez vs Pacquiao). If a SD occurs, I feel an automatic rematch should be made pending on the defeated boxers choice.

I'm not too keen on that last bit.

What did Oscar do to bring Mayweather to Mexico for a rematch? An SD doesn't always favour the winner.

I think what I'm really trying to elude to is where there has been an out an out robbery the boxing commissions should demand the fight is rematched. Such as Lara vs Williams etc.

Quick English lesson for you, you only use "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant.

Off-topic response contained in spoiler.

Spoiler:

As for the topic, I would guess neutral judges and more accountability would be the most practical ways forward. Neutral venues would make it harder to sell tickets and could also make it harder to get fights made, I reckon.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

All Time Great wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

All Time Great wrote:Just ignore split decisions. Most educated people know who was the real winner in a fight when the decision goes the wrong way(eg Mayweather vs Castillo, Chisora vs Helinus and Marquez vs Pacquiao). If a SD occurs, I feel an automatic rematch should be made pending on the defeated boxers choice.

I'm not too keen on that last bit.

What did Oscar do to bring Mayweather to Mexico for a rematch? An SD doesn't always favour the winner.

I think what I'm really trying to elude to is where there has been an out an out robbery the boxing commissions should demand the fight is rematched. Such as Lara vs Williams etc.

Quick English lesson for you, you only use "an" before a vowel and "a" before a consonant.

Off-topic response contained in spoiler.

Spoiler:

As for the topic, I would guess neutral judges and more accountability would be the most practical ways forward. Neutral venues would make it harder to sell tickets and could also make it harder to get fights made, I reckon.

I apologise, I will be giving my English teacher a call. However, the use of Allude and elude was merely a typo on my iPhone.

In pretty sure "an SD" is incorrect. The correct use of English would be, "He lost to "a" split decision". You only use an in the following instances/ exceptions:

Exceptions

Use "an" before unsounded "h." Because the "h" hasn't any phonetic representation and has no audible sound, the sound that follows the article is a vowel; consequently, "an" is used.

an honorable peace
an honest error
When "u" makes the same sound as the "y" in "you," or "o" makes the same sound as "w" in "won," then a is used. The word-initial "y" sound ("unicorn") is actually a glide phonetically, which has consonantal properties; consequently, it is treated as a consonant, requiring "a."

ATG beats the count, stumbles back to his corner and lives to fight another day.

Nope, you were knocked out.

You recover data from an SD card.

Try saying it, it's unnatural to use 'a'.

Scottrf wrote:Nope, you were knocked out.

You recover data from an SD card.

Try saying it, it's unnatural to use 'a'.

You recover data from a SD card.....

I'm beginning to wish I'd simply written split decision.

Neutral ref and judges is the best answer I've seen so far, neutral venues would also be nice. Froch and Abraham showed recently that it can be done. All these boasters of today surely have it in them to turn down all advantages and just get on with it. Andre Ward's approach of having most of his fights in his home town with judges and referees from around the block is shamefully ridiculous, good thing Froch didn't stand for it.