Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why don't they interview judges in controversial decisions?
FightHype Community > OTHER HYPE > Archives
salvador
The Williams-Lara fight was obviously a horrific decision. At some point, I'd like HBO to interview the judges to get their ideas as to how that happens. Really, why don't they?

It seems to me that there's so much money involved in the sport right now to keep the "name" fighters winning that there should be some kind of legal ramifications for judges who can't justify their cards. Close fights are one thing - I get it. But that was just sad. Sad for Lara. Sad for boxing. And sad for HBO.

Allmenjoi8
QUOTE (salvador @ Jul 10 2011, 08:20 AM) *
The Williams-Lara fight was obviously a horrific decision. At some point, I'd like HBO to interview the judges to get their ideas as to how that happens. Really, why don't they?

It seems to me that there's so much money involved in the sport right now to keep the "name" fighters winning that there should be some kind of legal ramifications for judges who can't justify their cards. Close fights are one thing - I get it. But that was just sad. Sad for Lara. Sad for boxing. And sad for HBO.

I was actually thinking the same thing. Paul Williams had a horrific performance. He has 0 jab and 0 defense. Lara hit the man at will. I do not understand the score cards in this fight, what fight were they looking at. I do not get it.
salvador
between the fighters and the judges, the judges would have been better interviews after the fight - more interesting for the fans. It's better tv for HBO. I'm tired of seeing these guys get let off the hook.
The CEO
because they don't wanna bring anymore attention to it than they have to...it takes a lot for guys like Kellerman to get on there and try to save the sport's face enough...

The judges would probably get in front of the camera and simply say, "That's the way I saw it." and look down....
TheFonz
QUOTE (The CEO @ Jul 10 2011, 11:12 AM) *
because they don't wanna bring anymore attention to it than they have to...it takes a lot for guys like Kellerman to get on there and try to save the sport's face enough...

The judges would probably get in front of the camera and simply say, "That's the way I saw it." and look down....

lol...But at the same time they have to be held accountable. I would wager that if judges started to get grilled after submitting horrendous score cards it would happen less often.
Mean Mister Mustard
QUOTE (The CEO @ Jul 10 2011, 11:12 AM) *
because they don't wanna bring anymore attention to it than they have to...it takes a lot for guys like Kellerman to get on there and try to save the sport's face enough...

The judges would probably get in front of the camera and simply say, "That's the way I saw it." and look down....


and look down to their new Rolex and then say "Oh shit, I'm late, some promoter is taking me out to the Cadillac dealership."
HaydelHammer
they don't interview them because they are already in the locker room dividing up the brief case full of money they need to split by three that was RSVP to them from the promoter.

I know we scream for a league or commission in boxing like it can be done overnight (which we all know can't), but this is exactly why there should be a middle man in place running the "boxing league" globally....but good luck with that.

I'd love to see the titles consolidated under ONE LEAGUE (Call it World Boxing League or something) let em keep the alpha titles, even the promoters can be like "teams" in the league with their own fighters...still do the bullshit fights but ATLEAST we'll have a commissioner to be like "hey, that fight was bullshit and you know it...reverse the call or declare an immediate rematch".

This way the promoters will still have power over their fighters and who they fight..etc BUT us boxing fans will ATLEAST get SOME justice in a FORCED rematch.

This is all a stretch obviously and me just speaking hypothetically.
caneman
I am thinking maybe judges should NOT be scoring the fight ringside...maybe do it watching a telecast but with no one talking. I don't know, I mean sure, I have seen fights live and scored it one way and get home and watch it and wonder what I was looking @ ringside! It's because from one angle you can't clearly see all the punches...not that last night was about that but I wonder if it would help? Last night was really bad though and it seems to me either they were effected by crowd or they were on the take!

Scorecard wise and I forget which fight, but I seen crazier when 1 judge had it 117-111 for one guy and another judge 117-111 the other way...in a way that is 18 rounds difference in a 12 round fight! That doesn't change what happened last night though!

EDIT!!! It was Cory Spinks vs Jermain Taylor referee: Mike Ortega | judge: Dick Flaherty 117-111 | judge: Michael Pernick 113-115 | judge: Gale E. Van Hoy 111-117
blackbelt2003
It's a tough one because boxing is always gonna be objectional.

We can measure and record how many punches are thrown, how many land, how many miss etc, but what we can't measure is how hard a punch is.


Therefore, the judges have to guess what hits harder than the next punch. I guess they all figured that William's little pitty pat shots added up to more than Lara's power shots (even though he landed more and harder lol).


The problem is that no matter how tight you make criteria for judges, no matter what you do to judges who put out shitty score cards, you're ALWAYS gonna suddenly get a fight where the judges just give out random fucking scores like this. Any sport where you have a judge and not an electronic scoring method is gonna be the same.

What should be in place is a rematch mandate if a fight ends controversially.





Black
SmartyBeardo
Take a crowd poll (kind of like the Roman thumbs up, thumbs down thing). If it ends up thumbs down for a judge take him out back and shoot his ass. Judging will improve real quick.

Yes, I jest.

But, despicable judging should garner expulsion for life.
JONdaCON817
QUOTE (HaydelHammer @ Jul 10 2011, 10:25 AM) *
they don't interview them because they are already in the locker room dividing up the brief case full of money they need to split by three that was RSVP to them from the promoter.

I know we scream for a league or commission in boxing like it can be done overnight (which we all know can't), but this is exactly why there should be a middle man in place running the "boxing league" globally....but good luck with that.

I'd love to see the titles consolidated under ONE LEAGUE (Call it World Boxing League or something) let em keep the alpha titles, even the promoters can be like "teams" in the league with their own fighters...still do the bullshit fights but ATLEAST we'll have a commissioner to be like "hey, that fight was bullshit and you know it...reverse the call or declare an immediate rematch".

This way the promoters will still have power over their fighters and who they fight..etc BUT us boxing fans will ATLEAST get SOME justice in a FORCED rematch.

This is all a stretch obviously and me just speaking hypothetically.


i like your hypotheticalness...
gravytrain
i think if they started imposing fines and penalties on judges that have ridiculous cards we wouldn't see it as much.
FightHypeRules
I don't necessarily think it's judges being bought off or anything like that as much as it's just incompetence.

Boxing has always had its history of corruption, but I don't know if it's still as widespread as it used to be.

I think it's more likely that some judges are just incompetent.
salvador
QUOTE (FightHypeRules @ Jul 10 2011, 03:02 PM) *
I don't necessarily think it's judges being bought off or anything like that as much as it's just incompetence.

Boxing has always had its history of corruption, but I don't know if it's still as widespread as it used to be.

I think it's more likely that some judges are just incompetent.


If the horrible decisions didn't always go in favor of the glamour fighter I might see your point.
zucrates
QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jul 10 2011, 02:49 PM) *
i think if they started imposing fines and penalties on judges that have ridiculous cards we wouldn't see it as much.

How would you know who to fined because they're the judge and they're op is their op through their eyes so how could you just say man your card wrong I need to fined you. The area is to cloudy it would be to hard to impose fines because how could you tell them they didn't see what they saw
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (SmartyBeardo @ Jul 11 2011, 02:29 AM) *
Take a crowd poll (kind of like the Roman thumbs up, thumbs down thing). If it ends up thumbs down for a judge take him out back and shoot his ass. Judging will improve real quick.

Yes, I jest.

But, despicable judging should garner expulsion for life.


Back from Black Ops mate? You missed some cannon fodder while you were away.
gravytrain
QUOTE (zucrates @ Jul 10 2011, 05:58 PM) *
How would you know who to fined because they're the judge and they're op is their op through their eyes so how could you just say man your card wrong I need to fined you. The area is to cloudy it would be to hard to impose fines because how could you tell them they didn't see what they saw


tell them to pick a different hobby or learn how to score a fight. there are some cards out there that would be impossible to come up with, Malignaggi vs Diaz I is just one that comes to mind. Gale van Hoy had Diaz up something like 10 rounds in a fight he was losing in. if they're going to shit on boxing like that and completely insult a fighter that trained for a month or two they don't deserve to be scoring fights.
BoxingStill#1
QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jul 10 2011, 12:19 PM) *
It's a tough one because boxing is always gonna be objectional.

We can measure and record how many punches are thrown, how many land, how many miss etc, but what we can't measure is how hard a punch is.


Therefore, the judges have to guess what hits harder than the next punch. I guess they all figured that William's little pitty pat shots added up to more than Lara's power shots (even though he landed more and harder lol).


The problem is that no matter how tight you make criteria for judges, no matter what you do to judges who put out shitty score cards, you're ALWAYS gonna suddenly get a fight where the judges just give out random fucking scores like this. Any sport where you have a judge and not an electronic scoring method is gonna be the same.

What should be in place is a rematch mandate if a fight ends controversially.


Black



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
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (ViperSniper @ Jul 11 2011, 11:32 AM) *
Great question. I think a judge shouldn't be allowed to leave ringside and be obligated and forced to take an interview if requested by a commentator or network.


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.

That said judges should be called to account by the relevant state commission if their scorecard is poor or suspicious.

QUOTE (ViperSniper @ Jul 11 2011, 11:32 AM) *
It would be nice if there was an official boxing website (to the offical "boxing league") where fans can vote and if there is a certain percentage that disagrees with the scorecard(s) then the judge gets either fined, their license suspended or revoked and if the decision does not get overturned, then a rematch would then take place.


There should be no such thing (reference to the bold). Imagine if a popular fighter lost a decision & the said fighters fans deluged this site to lodge complaints? It would never work like that as it would allow for bias in a numbers game.

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 judgement then they should (dependant 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 offence.

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.
alaganza
I'm not sure how the interview would help. At the end of the interview the bad decision won't change. What I think would help is a consistent review and appeal process for such decisions.

But then again if the initial judging is bad why would the appeal process would be any better.
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
QUOTE (ViperSniper @ Jul 11 2011, 12:11 PM) *
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:

QUOTE
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
QUOTE (D-MARV @ Jul 10 2011, 11:15 PM) *
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
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Jul 10 2011, 08:43 PM) *
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
QUOTE (Fitz @ Jul 11 2011, 12:11 AM) *
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, thumbsup_anim.gif

zucrates
QUOTE (BoxingStill#1 @ Jul 10 2011, 08:42 PM) *
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. black eye.gif
FightHypeRules
QUOTE (salvador @ Jul 10 2011, 02:54 PM) *
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.

STEVENSKI
QUOTE (salvador @ Jul 11 2011, 11:15 PM) *
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.


The problem I see is that the judges are "freelance" & are not under a contract to any network. It would be very dangerous ground if judges were under contract to a network as they could fall victim to "Lamplelitis".


QUOTE (salvador @ Jul 11 2011, 11:15 PM) *
I'd also like there to be forensic accountants checking on judges' and promoters' bank accounts when horrible decisions with big money fighters happen.


That would be a great idea.
salvador
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Jul 11 2011, 06:10 PM) *
The problem I see is that the judges are "freelance" & are not under a contract to any network. It would be very dangerous ground if judges were under contract to a network as they could fall victim to "Lamplelitis".


Judges don't have to be paid or hired by the networks. The commissions can still hold that power. The only thing that the networks would be able to do would be to ask them questions when the fight was over.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (salvador @ Jul 12 2011, 11:31 AM) *
Judges don't have to be paid or hired by the networks. The commissions can still hold that power. The only thing that the networks would be able to do would be to ask them questions when the fight was over.


Then why should the judges appear on network TV if they are not going to get paid by the network? If I was a judge I would say sure interview me just give me $5000 each time of GTFO I owe you nothing.
salvador
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Jul 11 2011, 10:09 PM) *
Then why should the judges appear on network TV if they are not going to get paid by the network?


Because the boxing commission that hires them would insist. Basically, any judge who works a televised fight would understand going in that he could be interviewed by the network or he doesn't have to take the job.

The truth is that it should go past networks. Any judge for any fight should be required by the commission to answer questions from the press and that should be in their contracts - even if it's an internet reporter with a video camera. Obviously the judges wouldn't be required to take abuse, just straightforward questions. "Explain your thoughts on this round..."
Jack 1000
As I have posted before,

The pattern with bad decisions is that it is almost always the fighter with the better record, household name, or more influential promoter, who gets the call. Changing the scoring system won't produce better results. Getting judges more accountable for the decisions that the render, might.

All officials should be mandated to sign a statement that they be fair and impartial with no preferential bias to any fighter, promoter, or network. Suspicions if any b.s would mandate a commission and/or sanctioning body hearing where they official would be required to explain his scoring in each round, or refereeing in controversial parts of the fight.

A judging tribunal would search for evidence of wrong-doing based on the answers of the judge in questioning. If the appellate review finds no problems, the judge would be considered innocent. If the review board finds issues, the official gets a minimum of a six month suspension from service and gets fined $1000. Second offenses would result in higher penalties, ranging from a six month suspension to a lifetime ban.

The sanctioning bodies have mandatory yearly seminars for the judges. But that may not go fair enough. There should be eye-exams and medical physicals to determine an officials' competency. Aging is becoming more and more of a concern, that could lead to this incompetence. Sadly, the newer officials don't seem to have the experience needed to always judge impartially.

Jack

daprofessor
they need to give judges sobriety tests and eye tests.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.