IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> How does a BLATANT ROBBERY occur in boxing?, the ridiculous ones.
Mean Mister Must...
post Mar 25 2010, 10:29 PM
Post #11


Cruiserweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 5,543
Joined: 10-December 04
Member No.: 1,333



I think a lot of it is corruption but also sheer incompetence. I relate this to the Agustus-Burton fight in which, after the robbery, Teddy Atlas spoke to one of the members of the comission and found out, on the air, that the guy didn't know the difference between a majority decision and a split decision. You have to remember that most of the people emplyed by the comission don't know squat about boxing, this is just a job for them, they don't really care about boxing. Most of them don't, not all of them.

To your initial question, I too wonder how this is permitted but as you can see with Fitz, boxing is very subjective so before anything is done one has to establish that the decision was indeed a ;robbery' and not just a close fight. That alone is very difficult sometimes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jack 1000
post Mar 25 2010, 10:45 PM
Post #12


The Consultant


Group: Root Admin
Posts: 9,651
Joined: 2-December 02
Member No.: 14



I think what happens in the thirty to forty years that I have studied boxing is the common perception of certain variables that you can take into a fight in most instances. Here are some of them:

1.) Judges Hate Journeymen: That happens I would say over 60% of the time. They fighter with the mediocre record almost has to beat the living shit out of the promoter's guy about 9 rounds to 3 in unofficial eyes, just to get a draw on the cards. I have seen this even with very experienced judges at the helm. They aren't going to let some losing SOB. ("And they actually THINK SOB" get away with the bum winning.

2.) Judges know the networks like to pom-pom superstars and promoters want the superstars to be pom-pomed:
Again, a loss just means too much of an economic downturn for a top 34-0 guy to lose to a 18-10, guy. It's just not acceptable. How many times in boxing DOES an 18-10 record guy win a decision against a 34-0 guy? Extremely rare.

3.) There are little perks for going with a house fighter and consequences if you go against him:

British ref and judge Mickey Vann once said he worked a fight in Japan and before the fight received a camera. There have even been rumors of judges and refs accepting cash and sometimes bigger bribes for favoring the home town fighter. There were allegations that former New York Ref Harold Valan was seen having dinner with Jimmy Ellis' people before his fight with Floyd Patterson. Valan was the only voting official for that fight in Europe at the time, and Patterson on the rounds system in the eyes of many seemed to win a close fight, but the ref gave it to Ellis by the margin that most had it for Patterson.

Octavio Meyran remember him who worked Douglas-Tyson admitted that he gave a long count against Tyson in that fight, (actually he did the same against Douglas.) What people don't know is that Tyson bitched about it to Don King after the fight. (You even see Don in the press section seemingly upset after the memorable 8th round.) And while the count WAS long, King went to the WBC WBA and IBF and the WBC and WBA initially did not call Douglas champion because of Tyson's and King's protest. Only the IBF and the Japanese Boxinf Commission dismissed the protest outright. (They still sanctioned the fight, but to this day are not represented by the Japanese Boxing Commission.) The IBF is working to get represented in Japan.

Anyway, 36 hours later everyone dropped the protest, called Douglas a champion and agreed that Douglas-Tyson II would happen. Holyfield as the #1 contender in all federations threatened to sue if he did not get first crack at Douglas. Even the judges two of them had cards that showed that Tyosn was still in the fight. One judge had it even at 86-86, one judge had it 87-86-Tyson! and the third had Douglas up 88-83.

Watching that fight, giving Tyson every benefit of the doubt I always have Douglas up 5-3-1 (an even round 4) I always give Tyson rounds 7-9. But I always refuse to give Tyson a 10-8 round in the 8th round where he knocks Douglas down, because before the knockdown, Douglas was beating Tyson all over the ring in that round. The best you could do in that round is 10-9 for Tyson. That 10-8 round made the fight closer than it should have been.

But I always use this fight to show the great lengths that officials will go to protect a name fighter against a journeymen. In this case a 50-1 underdog! Oh and as for Octavio Mayran who was picked by the WBC as the main governing body for the fight. Although Jose Sulaiman called him "a man of great integrity who made a mistake," for whatever reason, Octavio Meyran never worked another title fight after Douglas-Tyson.

Stan Christoudoulou, one of my most respected international refs and judges, told a story about how someone tried to bribe him before a fight. He brought it to the authorities, the promoter was arrested, convicted, and his license was revoked.

Sometimes having neutral judges helps and the commissions and ruling bodies have inspectors and investigators to help with any problems of corruption or incompetence. Actually, considering the hundreds to thousands of fights over the years that take place, I have learned that the level of sheer HORRIBLE decisions has been thankfully small. But I have seen those numbers inflated when journeymen are fighting. They are the fighters who just cannot seem to get a break.

Jack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lil-lightsout
post Mar 25 2010, 10:48 PM
Post #13


Light Heavyweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 4,200
Joined: 10-August 05
Member No.: 3,047



QUOTE (Mean Mister Mustard @ Mar 25 2010, 11:29 PM) *
I think a lot of it is corruption but also sheer incompetence. I relate this to the Agustus-Burton fight in which, after the robbery, Teddy Atlas spoke to one of the members of the comission and found out, on the air, that the guy didn't know the difference between a majority decision and a split decision. You have to remember that most of the people emplyed by the comission don't know squat about boxing, this is just a job for them, they don't really care about boxing. Most of them don't, not all of them.

To your initial question, I too wonder how this is permitted but as you can see with Fitz, boxing is very subjective so before anything is done one has to establish that the decision was indeed a ;robbery' and not just a close fight. That alone is very difficult sometimes.


The Augustus-Burton fight, there first one, was a straight up robbery. Not incompetence in that fight,though there is alot of that in other fights. The fight was in Burton's hometown and the fight was not even close. Those judges clearly(2 of them) already had the winner picked beforehand. And the problem is nothing fucking happens! The same shit has been going on as long as I have been an avid fan, and until severe action is taken against these scumbag crooks, it will continue. It's like the man who can constantly cheats on his wife and gets away with it because the wife allows it. Until the wife truly takes care of the problem,the man will continue to cheat.

Some of these old farts judging fights makes me wonder sometimes how competent they actually are. It is obvious the last couple of years how Howard Lederman has lost his skills to judge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lil-lightsout
post Mar 25 2010, 10:57 PM
Post #14


Light Heavyweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 4,200
Joined: 10-August 05
Member No.: 3,047



QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Mar 25 2010, 11:45 PM) *
I think what happens in the thirty to forty years that I have studied boxing is the common perception of certain variables that you can take into a fight in most instances. Here are some of them:

1.) Judges Hate Journeymen: That happens I would say over 60% of the time. They fighter with the mediocre record almost has to beat the living shit out of the promoter's guy about 9 rounds to 3 in unofficial eyes, just to get a draw on the cards. I have seen this even with very experienced judges at the helm. They aren't going to let some losing SOB. ("And they actually THINK SOB" get away with the bum winning.

2.) Judges know the networks like to pom-pom superstars and promoters want the superstars to be pom-pomed:
Again, a loss just means too much of an economic downturn for a top 34-0 guy to lose to a 18-10, guy. It's just not acceptable. How many times in boxing DOES an 18-10 record guy win a decision against a 34-0 guy? Extremely rare.

3.) There are little perks for going with a house fighter and consequences if you go against him:


Jack


Agree.

I remember watching this one fight one ESPN about 5-10 years ago. The undefeated fighter was fighting a tough journeyman, do not remember either of there names. But Teddy was so on the undefeated fighters jock for all the rounds, it went about 5 or 6 rounds. The journeyman was winning all the exchanges and was getting the better of the undefeated guy and you could see he was wearing him down. But Teddy still kept talking about the house fighter, and hardly mentioning the journeyman, it was sickening. The journeyman went on to stop the touted undefeated fighter, and Teddy played it off and acted as if it was luck. It was shocking to see even Teddy on some ones nuts even though they did not deserve it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KENSOFINE
post Mar 26 2010, 10:00 AM
Post #15


Super Flyweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 262
Joined: 20-October 09
Member No.: 10,591



QUOTE (Lil-lightsout @ Mar 25 2010, 11:57 PM) *
Agree.

The journeyman went on to stop the touted undefeated fighter, and Teddy played it off and acted as if it was luck. It was shocking to see even Teddy on some ones nuts even though they did not deserve it.


I LITERALLY HATE the term "LUCKY" in boxing, as in lucky fighter or lucky punch. A boxer's goal is to throw punches. If I do EXACTLY what I set out to do, and you werent quick, smart, or elusive enough not to fall victim to my plan, even if that instance is only momentary...how is it luck on MY part? "Rahman caught Lewis with a lucky punch". Bullshit. He threw a punch with the intention of hurting another boxer, and he did. Simple as that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MarzB
post Mar 26 2010, 04:26 PM
Post #16


Junior Welterweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 1,368
Joined: 8-January 05
Member No.: 1,494



QUOTE (KENSOFINE @ Mar 26 2010, 10:00 AM) *
I LITERALLY HATE the term "LUCKY" in boxing, as in lucky fighter or lucky punch. A boxer's goal is to throw punches. If I do EXACTLY what I set out to do, and you werent quick, smart, or elusive enough not to fall victim to my plan, even if that instance is only momentary...how is it luck on MY part? "Rahman caught Lewis with a lucky punch". Bullshit. He threw a punch with the intention of hurting another boxer, and he did. Simple as that.


Thank you and I agree with your post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Warlord
post Mar 27 2010, 05:55 AM
Post #17


Junior Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 2,191
Joined: 1-June 09
From: Shanghai, China (The Shithole of the Universe)
Member No.: 10,313



QUOTE (KENSOFINE @ Mar 26 2010, 11:00 AM) *
I LITERALLY HATE the term "LUCKY" in boxing, as in lucky fighter or lucky punch. A boxer's goal is to throw punches. If I do EXACTLY what I set out to do, and you werent quick, smart, or elusive enough not to fall victim to my plan, even if that instance is only momentary...how is it luck on MY part? "Rahman caught Lewis with a lucky punch". Bullshit. He threw a punch with the intention of hurting another boxer, and he did. Simple as that.

Playing Devil's advocate here, but what if a fighter had his eyes closed when he threw a punch? Is that luck, or like, super fucking skilled?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KENSOFINE
post Mar 27 2010, 08:51 AM
Post #18


Super Flyweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 262
Joined: 20-October 09
Member No.: 10,591



QUOTE (Warlord @ Mar 27 2010, 06:55 AM) *
Playing Devil's advocate here, but what if a fighter had his eyes closed when he threw a punch? Is that luck, or like, super fucking skilled?


Your job as an opponent is to prevent me from being successful. If my blind punch lands, that has more to do with YOUR negligence, than anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
1zz
post Mar 27 2010, 09:10 AM
Post #19


Junior Welterweight


Group: Members
Posts: 1,436
Joined: 8-December 03
Member No.: 634



DLH Mosley II
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jack 1000
post Mar 27 2010, 12:15 PM
Post #20


The Consultant


Group: Root Admin
Posts: 9,651
Joined: 2-December 02
Member No.: 14



QUOTE (1zz @ Mar 27 2010, 09:10 AM) *
DLH Mosley II


I thought that was an incorrect call but not a robbery. Just about everyone at home had it for Oscar 116-112 to 115-113. I had it for Oscar 115-113. Most at ringside had it 115-113 Shane to a 114-114 draw. When you see that type of diversion in scoring from people and officials, it should not be considered a robbery. All three judges carded 115-113 for Mosley, BUT they each disagreed in rounds concerning how they got there. It was that type of fight.

I thought Delahoya's win over Sturm was worse. And actually, the judges, with the exception of one who gave an obviously won 8th round ( I think it was) by Sturm to Oscar, they were pretty much in synch with the rest of us until the 12th round. Everyone thought Sturm took the last round clearly for a 116-112 to 115-113 win. All three judges gave the 12th round to Delahoya seemingly to keep the Hopkins fight intact. If they would have went for Sturm by giving him the last round, Sturm would have won and the verdict would have been fair.

Jack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd July 2014 - 12:39 PM