[Guest_Fitz_*]

An interview may not change the scorecard, but it could make judges think twice in the future about giving a shitty card.

[D-MARV]

Didn't they bring in the judges from the first Lewis-Holyfield fight and interviewed them?

[STEVENSKI]

I was unaware of the situation wit the judges and networks, but it would still be nice for them to be put on the spot and tell the fans how and why they saw the fight the way they did.

As for my poll suggestion, I totally agree as I was thinking the exact same thing when I wrote that as it is a flaw. But overall I do think it would clear up more matter than what we are already getting.

Good post STEVENSKI. I have also noticed most of the judges look like they are already past away!

I could be wrong but judges judge fights on all networks so to speak there are no house judges for a network. I am working on assumptions but if a fighter is under contract to X network then as part of their contract they would usually give a post fight interview unless they get brutally KO'd.

A televised panel would make sense kind of like a press conference that footy coaches go through after a game & as you know face some seriously tough questions from the media about their actions.

I agree with your poll suggestion but I think there would have to be a more formal process set up to lodge a complaint. Imagine all the morons who would protest if their favourite fighter lost (you know what two I am talking about). I think Jack has sent formal letters of complaint to the various commissions over his grievences over the years. If they even read them is another story.......

As for the judges some are so fucking old I seriously question their reaction times & their standard of vision with the ridiculous scorecards that get handed out.

I know that judges only have one angle to view a fight from & do not have the benifit of multiple replays from different angles but they are looking up at the fighters & should have a better view of if a punch truly lands as well.

[Lil-lightsout]

I wish Teddy Atlas was one of the commentator's last night. He would have went ape shit on them.haha

[Jack 1000]

I got a report from someone who was there. A few people had at a draw, but almost everyone else had Lura comfortably ahead. No one thought Williams won.

I like the quote below:

What there should be is a official forum where fans can express their displeasure at the way a fight was scored & that judge should have to front a tribunal to justify their scorecard to the relevant commission. If found by the panel to have displayed poor judgment then they should (dependent on the level of ineptitude) be punished accordingly such as having their license suspended for X amount of time with increasing penalties for each subsequent offense.

One thing I have noticed is that the judges are getting older. Is there a reaction test & eyesight test that is conducted annually for all accredited judges? If not there should be just like with over 85 drivers.

I think some judges are intimidated by going against the house fighter, cause if they do, especially the younger ones. they feel they are less reluctant to get picked again. Maybe it's time for some house fighters to NOT get close decisions to create perhaps neutralize past injustices? I don't know. That's still a "Two wrongs don't make a right ideology."

I could not find any justification for Williams win last night. None. I was in the minority along with Harold, in giving Williams the first Quintana fight by a hair. When Paul was in his prime, I found many of his fights hard to score because of the way he used to throw from different angles and it is hard to tell with his awkward height and reach, what shots are landing. Now I hear that the judges may have liked Paul being busier. But I did not see Paul even being busier last night. I did see a 4-4 draw after round 8, but Williams certainly lost every round after that.

Jack

[Jack 1000]

Didn't they bring in the judges from the first Lewis-Holyfield fight and interviewed them?

Yes,

But found nothing. Jean Williams who turned in a hideous 115-113, Holyfield score said that her view was blocked. Larry O'Connell and KO Magazine's Jeff Ryan, had terrible draw verdicts. Most had Lewis ahead by 3-6 points. Jean was slandered by some writer and sued. She won the case. It was against some British tabloid. They found no evidence of wrongdoing, just incompetence.

And that's one of the issues. These judges who have been around for 20-50 years, might have been competent at one time, but aging may be a factor in their decision making process, or poor eyesight, or just compelled to favor the fighter who has the higher promoter. Jean's case is very strange, because she has been fair in about every other fight she has worked. same with O'Connell. However, Jean gets very few ring assignments, because of the stigma of her bad Holyfield-Lewis I scorecard, and rightfully so.

Jack

[salvador]

Judges are not contracted to a network & have no obligation whatsoever to be interviewed by anyone. This is different to fighters who are paid by a network for their performance & are obligated to give a interview post fight.

Given that there's only 3 networks in the US that show boxing, the commissions would be hard pressed to tell HBO, Showtime, or ESPN "no" to granting interviews with judges and having that included in the contracts.

It's not like anyone ever wants to hear from judges except in particularly bad decisions. How any serious/legit judge could give Williams that fight is beyond me and I'd like to know what the logic was.

I'd also like there to be forensic accountants checking on judges' and promoters' bank accounts when horrible decisions with big money fighters happen.

[alaganza]

An interview may not change the scorecard, but it could make judges think twice in the future about giving a sh*tty card.

True. At least initially. One of the posters earlier said basically the judges will only say "That's how I saw the fight". At that point what does an interview accomplish.

Just for me, it would irritate me more to see a judge give an interview from what he/she has already rehearsed. Just like a boxer has the "obligation" to say he won the fight in the interview, it seems to me the judges will have the same "obligation" to say "that's how I saw the fight".

On another note, if I were a betting man, I would say Teddy Atlas will have a field day with this fight on this week's FNF. I can already see him talking National Commission again, (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup_anim.gif)

[zucrates]

I see your point.

But I think a fight is in all actuality judged by who created more damage....afterall it is a fight.....a way to help with that is concubox numbers and so forth..

Still if that's how this fight was suppose to be judged its still a shame

IMO You still couldn't put alot on damage either because some people bruise easier and they might have scar tissue issues from previous fights so that why they're able to put out bad cards because the judges always have an out the field is to broad. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/black eye.gif)

[FightHypeRules]

If the horrible decisions didn't always go in favor of the glamour fighter I might see your point.

Or it may very well be a situation of certain judges being fans of certain fighters. So they are blinded to the realities while watching the fight.

I don't know or pretend to know what's behind some of these decisions. I just don't necessarily think that all these bad decisions are the result of someone being paid off.

It very well could be a mixture of incompetence and judges being partial towards certain fighters whether it's THEM or their style or what. Or maybe just NOT being a fan of another fighter.