PDA

View Full Version : What is this strategy of judges?



Double L
02-08-2012, 10:28 AM
There's a pattern in boxing in big fights, especially in Vegas, in which unanimously, the judges will score a round for a fighter who clearly lost the round.

I'd expect judges' score-cards to diverge on rounds that are close.

I'd expect judges' score-cards to be unanimous in favor of a fighter whose obviously won the round.

I'd expect a obviously faulty score-card, in which the fighter who's clearly lost the round is awarded it, to diverge from the others.

But I wouldn't expect, and can't explain, when all three judges' score-cards score a round in favor of a fighter who's clearly lost the round.

Can anyone explain this? Could this be some sort of strategy for essentially fixing the fight? Why does this happen?

Destruction and Mayhem
02-08-2012, 10:36 AM
There's a pattern in boxing in big fights, especially in Vegas, in which unanimously, the judges will score a round for a fighter who clearly lost the round.

I'd expect judges' score-cards to diverge on rounds that are close.

I'd expect judges' score-cards to be unanimous in favor of a fighter whose obviously won the round.

I'd expect a obviously faulty score-card, in which the fighter who's clearly lost the round is awarded it, to diverge from the others.

But I wouldn't expect, and can't explain, when all three judges' score-cards score a round in favor of a fighter who's clearly lost the round.
Can anyone explain this? Could this be some sort of strategy for essentially fixing the fight? Why does this happen?


Maybe all three are correct and you are wrong.

Just a thought....

Double L
02-08-2012, 10:51 AM
Maybe all three are correct and you are wrong.

Just a thought....

That's fair. Except the instances I'm referring to aren't even debatable. I'm talking about rounds.

If you can imagine a round in which there's simply no chance fighter A lost to fighter B, that's the kind I'm referring to.

Do we agree such a thing exists? A round that if we're adhering reporting on what actually ensued, can't possibly go to the other fighter?

Destruction and Mayhem
02-08-2012, 10:55 AM
That's fair. Except the instances I'm referring to aren't even debatable. I'm talking about rounds.

If you can imagine a round in which there's simply no chance fighter A lost to fighter B, that's the kind I'm referring to.

Do we agree such a thing exists? A round that if we're adhering reporting on what actually ensued, can't possibly go to the other fighter?

Same thought applies...whether it be round or fight.

Give me an example of a round that fits this criteria in your opinion

Double L
02-08-2012, 10:58 AM
Same thought applies...whether it be round or fight.

Give me an example of a round that fits this criteria in your opinion

I'd like to keep it hypothetical if possible, because I don't want the question to be lost in a debate about a particular fight.

So you yourself have never noticed such a thing?

Destruction and Mayhem
02-08-2012, 11:13 AM
I'd like to keep it hypothetical if possible, because I don't want the question to be lost in a debate about a particular fight.

So you yourself have never noticed such a thing?

I can't recall an instant of this to be honest. Perhaps in happened in the CHavez Whitaker fight...but what round?

Ugotabe Kidding
02-08-2012, 11:18 AM
I'd like to keep it hypothetical if possible, because I don't want the question to be lost in a debate about a particular fight.

So you yourself have never noticed such a thing?

This leads nowhere if you can't name an example

Double L
02-08-2012, 11:45 AM
This leads nowhere if you can't name an example

Well, I'm asking if in a theoretical sense, there's any explanation for judges to do this.

One example is, ODH/PBF, round 6. It was arguably the best round of the fight for ODH, and every judge gave it to PBF.

Thing that's weird is, even when judge's score-cards are agreeable in aggregate (they have the right guy winning by most people's accounts), if you break down which rounds they gave to whom, it almost never jives.

In other words, if you assess the ability of judges to render reasonable and defendable score cards on a round by round basis, that is, with no respect to whom the ultimate winner of the fight is, it's so often a head scratcher.

And when you're scratching your head over a score card, that if it were turned in by one or even two judges could be written off as a anomaly, is unanimous across all three, it's worthy of discussion in my opinion, in the very least.

I guess I'll need more examples. My hope was everyone else had noticed this and might have a explanation why judges might do this, if for example, they have an agenda - why, in theory, judges may all score the round incorrectly. If this were the case, we'd be better off without examples.

Anyway, I'll try to dig up other examples.

steve_dave
02-08-2012, 11:49 AM
It's all a pattern, man. Fucking patterns.

Destruction and Mayhem
02-08-2012, 12:10 PM
One example is, ODH/PBF, round 6. It was arguably the best round of the fight for ODH, and every judge gave it to PBF. .

Ok let's all look at round 6. Also...do we have evidence that all three judges scored it for Floyd?

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vIZm8lzGXmM" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Double L
02-08-2012, 12:22 PM
Ok let's all look at round 6. Also...do we have evidence that all three judges scored it for Floyd?

<IFRAME src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vIZm8lzGXmM" frameBorder=0 width=560 height=315 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Wow. And to think I was afraid the point of the thread would be lost and a debate about a particular fight would ensue.

Honestly, if you haven't noticed what I have, that's fine. The point isn't to debate score-cards of a particular fight.
And Yes. Actual scores were provided in the HBO replay of the fight.

Destruction and Mayhem
02-08-2012, 01:25 PM
Wow. And to think I was afraid the point of the thread would be lost and a debate about a particular fight would ensue.

Honestly, if you haven't noticed what I have, that's fine. The point isn't to debate score-cards of a particular fight.
And Yes. Actual scores were provided in the HBO replay of the fight.

As UGO said...this thread is meaningless without actual examples to discuss.

D MAN
02-08-2012, 01:33 PM
Floyd - DLH round 6 looked pretty close to me, much like most of that fight.
Lots of feinting and missed punches by both guys.

Do you have an example that remotely fits your criteria ?

Ugotabe Kidding
02-08-2012, 01:45 PM
Ok let's all look at round 6. Also...do we have evidence that all three judges scored it for Floyd?

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vIZm8lzGXmM" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Ok I watched it. There is no case here. The ring generalship was about even, there were times that Oscar came forwards and had Floyd backing away but just as often Floyd stopped him from coming. Oscar landed one solid right hand and one quick pitty-pat flurry against the ropes, while Floyd obviously scored with cleaner, more solid shots through the round.

It was a pretty even round but I thought PBF took it. Also, this was a round that the judges would probably score for Floyd. The big difference watching at ringside and TV is not the broadcasters as people often think is the case, but it is that you can't see how effective the punches are from the TV. This is why TV audience usually favors the guy who throws more while judges score rounds for the one with cleaner, more effective punches. I have witnessed this difference several times

Double L
02-08-2012, 02:00 PM
Interesting. Ok. Let's assume it were mis-scored. Is there any reason (possibly unsavory) why judges might do this? :lol:

Ugotabe Kidding
02-08-2012, 02:05 PM
Interesting. Ok. Let's assume it were mis-scored. Is there any reason (possibly unsavory) why judges might do this? :lol:

They don't know fighters from each other?
They are all bribed?
They have made a deal to fuck with their scorecards just for the hell of it?
They all are hippety-hop judges?
They know rules worse than you?
:dunno:

I mean come on, this really leads nowhere unless you can find even one proper example. Then we could perhaps speculate with things surrounding that fight

Destruction and Mayhem
02-08-2012, 02:08 PM
Interesting. Ok. Let's assume it were mis-scored. Is there any reason (possibly unsavory) why judges might do this? :lol:

Without an example this question is meaningless.

It's like asking:

"Why would a referee disqualify a fighter for sneezing in between rounds?"

There are no such examples of this and so how on Earth are we to give a logical answer to it?

Double L
02-08-2012, 02:38 PM
Without an example this question is meaningless.

It's like asking:

"Why would a referee disqualify a fighter for sneezing in between rounds?"

There are no such examples of this and so how on Earth are we to give a logical answer to it?

No. It's more like asking:

Why would a referee score a round for a fighter he clearly lost, late in the fight, but award the fight to the other fighter, even when he clearly lost?

The answer:

The referee awarded the fighter the round he clearly lost in order to balance out his score-card more evenly so as to not draw attention to the fact he'd been scoring it all along unfairly in favor of the other guy.

Roll With The Punches
02-08-2012, 02:54 PM
all the judges get a horrible view and miss particular parts of the fight where Fighter A makes an impact?

Double L
02-08-2012, 03:07 PM
The fact is, when at least one judge gave ODH the final round of the Trinidad/ODH fight, many interpreted it as an effort by the judge to balance out his score-card and make it less obvious the fact he'd scored it unfairly for Trinidad.

And so it's an example of how an obvious mis-scoring of a round can signal corruption. And the logic behind it is clear.

I was wondering if there were a corresponding signal in the case when all three judges score a round for one fighter, when seemingly, the other fighter clearly won the round.

Like I said, I'll try to dig up some examples, but honestly, having explained the situation as best I can, I'm not sure how they would further illuminate my point.

If I were to ask someone to explain how it can rain and sunshine at the same time, and he didn't know the answer, I'm not sure an example of such a time would help him do so.

Neil
02-08-2012, 04:00 PM
the dalby shirley effect ^

steve_dave
02-08-2012, 04:27 PM
I'm pretty sure Doub was on here bitching about a robbery after Mayweather/De La Hoya.

mikE
02-08-2012, 05:09 PM
When the girls carry the ring card with one hand over the corner of the card and the other hand on the side or the bottom, that is code to the judges to score the following round for a specific fighter.

Hand on left corner = red corner wins round; hand on right corner = blue corner wins round

this is a highly-guarded secret, but fucking Double L has blown the cover off of the conspiracy and the chickens are out and running free.

Double L
02-08-2012, 05:12 PM
When the girls carry the ring card with one hand over the corner of the card and the other hand on the side or the bottom, that is code to the judges to score the following round for a specific fighter.

Hand on left corner = red corner wins round; hand on right corner = blue corner wins round

this is a highly-guarded secret, but fucking Double L has blown the cover off of the conspiracy and the chickens are out and running free.

I did not know that. You do know when I used the word signal I meant it in an abstract sense, right? And in reference to us specs and not other judges?

Destruction and Mayhem
02-08-2012, 05:37 PM
I did not know that. You do know when I used the word signal I meant it in an abstract sense, right? And in reference to us specs and not other judges?

:giggle:

You're a legitimate madman.