Rokko
07-28-2015, 04:04 AM
Bad Judging in Boxing…And How to REALLY Fix It
By BT 1 on 27 July 2015
By Paul Magno
Last Saturday night there was yet another bad decision rendered by judges as relatively unknown Cuban Yunieski Gonzalez dropped a disputed ten-rounder to former light heavyweight titlist Jean Pascal on the Sergey Kovalev-Nadjib Mohammedi HBO undercard.
And along with the bad decision, there came the usual wave of misguided outrage and lame-brained proposed solutions.
Fire the judges…Add more judges…Place the judges on lifeguard chairs high above the ring,…Have the judges score the fight backstage via video hook-up….etc, etc, etc…
But it’s all a lot of hot air from people who either don’t know the sport or are conveniently pretending to not know it.
The truth of the matter is that the entire system is rigged against fair and proper judging. The back door to bad judging is left open as an escape hatch for when things don’t go as planned for the house fighter.
For those not familiar with the judging system, here’s how it works:
A list of judges, pre-approved by the lead promoter, is taken by the sanctioning body to the commission (which is also often filled with buddies and old cronies of the promoter) and, from that list, three judges are appointed for the bout. The promoter is then responsible for not only providing payment to the judges, but in some states, required to provide for food, accommodations, and a small per diem to cover the judges’ expenses. In other words, the current system is one where the promoter is in control of virtually every aspect when it comes to selection and compensation of the officials.
“Believe it or not, the promoters pay the judges,” affirmed former two-division world champ and TV commentator Bobby Czyz in a FightHype.com interview. “The judges are appointed by the commission and the promoter pays them. That’s part of his responsibility. Now, the sanctioning bodies, what they’ll do is say, ‘Any one of these 12 judges, we’ll accept’ because the sanctioning bodies have to accept the judges or they won’t sanction it as a title fight.”
Per Mitch Abramson of the New York Daily News in a 2009 article:
“…it’s the relationship between the judges and the promoters that should be examined.
In the dense world of boxing, judges who score these fights are on the payroll of the event’s promoter.
For appearances sake, the promoter hands the check over to the commission, who then delivers it to the judges. But the result is the same: The promoter is paying the judge to make a decision in a fight the promoter has a financial stake in…This is outrageous. In no other major professional sport is a team owner responsible for the salary and housing of its officials.
You don’t see Yankees owner George Steinbrenner pulling up in a golf cart and cutting a check for “Cowboy” Joe West, or any other umpire. Major League Baseball handles that fiduciary duty. You don’t see James Dolan, who oversees the Knicks, waiting in a Garden corridor to pay [official] **** Bavetta.”
So, while there’s no evidence of overt pressure to score a fight to the benefit of the lead promoter’s fighter, there really isn’t a need for any coercion. The implication is clear-- Score the fight the “right” way or you may not get that next big assignment. No easy paycheck, no paid vacation, no comp hotel room, no per diem, no adrenaline rush from being ringside at a big fight.
Apologists for the status quo will point out ad nauseam that judging boxing is a subjective endeavor, influenced by opinion and one’s own personal fight aesthetic. And while that’s true to a certain extent, it’s amazing how few horrible decisions are rendered—even from notoriously “bad” judges—when no money is on the table and nothing is at risk for the promoter footing the bill. Also amazing is the fact that these horrible decisions are almost never to the detriment of the “money” or “house” fighter. As a matter of fact, if you can recall a case (other than Pacquiao-Bradley I) where a bad decision went against the “money” fighter, please share it in the comment section of this article because this writer has been racking his brain in an effort to recall a single such instance.
This all boils down to the only REAL solution to boxing’s “inconsistent” judging.
There has to a complete overhaul to the structure of the sport and a permanent and impenetrable barrier placed between the money men who promote the events and the officiating, judging, timekeeping, etc. Nothing else will end the shameless parade of robberies. It doesn’t matter if a hundred judges are appointed to a bout, all equipped with their own HD monitors and replay on demand, if the underlying system is riddled with conflicts of interest and access to easy cheats.
The sad reality, however, is that there is no single entity in the sport powerful enough to make this essential reform. And those few people who could leverage their power into making this change are the ones currently benefiting most from the easily-corruptible system.
By BT 1 on 27 July 2015
By Paul Magno
Last Saturday night there was yet another bad decision rendered by judges as relatively unknown Cuban Yunieski Gonzalez dropped a disputed ten-rounder to former light heavyweight titlist Jean Pascal on the Sergey Kovalev-Nadjib Mohammedi HBO undercard.
And along with the bad decision, there came the usual wave of misguided outrage and lame-brained proposed solutions.
Fire the judges…Add more judges…Place the judges on lifeguard chairs high above the ring,…Have the judges score the fight backstage via video hook-up….etc, etc, etc…
But it’s all a lot of hot air from people who either don’t know the sport or are conveniently pretending to not know it.
The truth of the matter is that the entire system is rigged against fair and proper judging. The back door to bad judging is left open as an escape hatch for when things don’t go as planned for the house fighter.
For those not familiar with the judging system, here’s how it works:
A list of judges, pre-approved by the lead promoter, is taken by the sanctioning body to the commission (which is also often filled with buddies and old cronies of the promoter) and, from that list, three judges are appointed for the bout. The promoter is then responsible for not only providing payment to the judges, but in some states, required to provide for food, accommodations, and a small per diem to cover the judges’ expenses. In other words, the current system is one where the promoter is in control of virtually every aspect when it comes to selection and compensation of the officials.
“Believe it or not, the promoters pay the judges,” affirmed former two-division world champ and TV commentator Bobby Czyz in a FightHype.com interview. “The judges are appointed by the commission and the promoter pays them. That’s part of his responsibility. Now, the sanctioning bodies, what they’ll do is say, ‘Any one of these 12 judges, we’ll accept’ because the sanctioning bodies have to accept the judges or they won’t sanction it as a title fight.”
Per Mitch Abramson of the New York Daily News in a 2009 article:
“…it’s the relationship between the judges and the promoters that should be examined.
In the dense world of boxing, judges who score these fights are on the payroll of the event’s promoter.
For appearances sake, the promoter hands the check over to the commission, who then delivers it to the judges. But the result is the same: The promoter is paying the judge to make a decision in a fight the promoter has a financial stake in…This is outrageous. In no other major professional sport is a team owner responsible for the salary and housing of its officials.
You don’t see Yankees owner George Steinbrenner pulling up in a golf cart and cutting a check for “Cowboy” Joe West, or any other umpire. Major League Baseball handles that fiduciary duty. You don’t see James Dolan, who oversees the Knicks, waiting in a Garden corridor to pay [official] **** Bavetta.”
So, while there’s no evidence of overt pressure to score a fight to the benefit of the lead promoter’s fighter, there really isn’t a need for any coercion. The implication is clear-- Score the fight the “right” way or you may not get that next big assignment. No easy paycheck, no paid vacation, no comp hotel room, no per diem, no adrenaline rush from being ringside at a big fight.
Apologists for the status quo will point out ad nauseam that judging boxing is a subjective endeavor, influenced by opinion and one’s own personal fight aesthetic. And while that’s true to a certain extent, it’s amazing how few horrible decisions are rendered—even from notoriously “bad” judges—when no money is on the table and nothing is at risk for the promoter footing the bill. Also amazing is the fact that these horrible decisions are almost never to the detriment of the “money” or “house” fighter. As a matter of fact, if you can recall a case (other than Pacquiao-Bradley I) where a bad decision went against the “money” fighter, please share it in the comment section of this article because this writer has been racking his brain in an effort to recall a single such instance.
This all boils down to the only REAL solution to boxing’s “inconsistent” judging.
There has to a complete overhaul to the structure of the sport and a permanent and impenetrable barrier placed between the money men who promote the events and the officiating, judging, timekeeping, etc. Nothing else will end the shameless parade of robberies. It doesn’t matter if a hundred judges are appointed to a bout, all equipped with their own HD monitors and replay on demand, if the underlying system is riddled with conflicts of interest and access to easy cheats.
The sad reality, however, is that there is no single entity in the sport powerful enough to make this essential reform. And those few people who could leverage their power into making this change are the ones currently benefiting most from the easily-corruptible system.