Boxing judges are not always crooked

Thought about this after the Canelo thread. There are fighters who seem to be friends with judges (such as Canelo, Ali, or Leonard) and there are judges who seem to always favor the hometown guy. This does happen, but it is not always the whole truth.

Here in Finland there was a judge who always got bashed for his ridiculous scorecards. He scored 60-55 for the home guy when other judges had it 57-57 or 58-57 on several occasions. Yet, I know the guy and I know for a fact that he isn't getting paid for his scorecards nor has any connections to promotional companies.

There were also occasions when he was the lone guy who judged against the home guy even when others saw him as the winner. It turned out that he wasn't, in fact, biased in favor of hometown guys but biased towards certain boxing style.

This guy in question always gave the round for a guy who fought in "German style", keeping hands up, throwing clean jabs, and gave almost no attention to infighting or the quality of punches. Usually it was the Finnish guy who benefitted from such scoring, but not always.

Think of Adelaide Byrd for example. She scored GGG-Canelo 118-110 in favor of Canelo, which seemed ludicrous. Yet, she was the lone judge who scored Richar Abril vs Brandon Rios, for Abril (with wide margin), which was the fight most spectators saw.

So could it be that Byrd is not necessarily crooked but instead she has a very strict (and perhaps narrow) view of boxing, where landing the cleanest punches is the most important factor in her scoring?

 

The writer Thomas Hauser, like Angelo Dundee before him always scores in favor of whoever moves around more regardless of whether they actually land any punches

Thankfully nobody felt the urge to make either an official judge

While there are sometimes crooked judges, what Ugo talks about is also true with regard to judges with unrealistically rigid interpretations ... the corruption comes from the choosing of the judges which can be stacked in a particular fighter's favor based on the understanding of a judge's tendency

 

Not only that. Judges knows that they will be chosen more if they score fights for the right guy. Corruption doesnt always involves a brown enveloppe, ans is usually much more subtile.

If you think that it is a coincidence that this guy tend to favour hometown fighter "style", youre very naive.

 

Yes, that's one of the problems... people looking for a 'smoking envelope'... the corruption strawman...

Doesn't work that way because that would be stupidly easy to detect and because it's not even necessary

 

But as I said, he often was the lone guy voting against the home guy, too

 

Ugo has a known bias in favor of fighters with names containing baffling double vowels

 

These judges have accounts in the Caymans

 

The Infamous Story of Willie Pep WINNING a Round w/Out Throwing a Single Punch is an Example of This...

You Can Almost Hear the Judges Thinking to Themselves, "Boxing is the Manly Art of SELF DEFENSE and This Guy Couldn't Lay a Glove on Willie", Never Considering Pep DIDN'T Land a Glove on the Opponent Either...

Everyone Has Stylistic Preferences But REED Tries to Keep 2 Factors in Mind...

1. HIT and Not Get Hit...Defense is Great, but You Have to HIT Your Opponent Also, Which is Why it's Preposterous for Pep to Have Won a Round w/Out Throwing a Punch...The Anti-Thesis of This was Mayorga-Forrest II, Where Some Fans GAVE a Particular Round to Mayorga for ALLOWING Forrest to Launch Three or Four 1-2 Combo's in his Grill...

As CAPTIVATING as it Was and Despite the Psychological Toll Mayorga's Tactics May or May Not have Taken on Vernon, You COULDN'T Score that Particular Round for Mayorga on the Strength of Willingly EATING 6-8 Flush Shots to the Face...

2. Max Kellerman's Theory - "Which Fighter Would You Have Rather Been?"...Especially When You're FAMILIAR w/a Fighter's Style, it's Fairly Easy to Discern WHICH You'd Have Rather Been @ the Conclusion of a Round...







REED

 

How about Max's final bullshit contribution?

Screamed in a gay spoiled brat whine:

"Jim. The question is, who is winning the story of the fight?"

The story? Wtf Max. Fuck you.

 

Never really "hated" Kellerman and still don't, but I lost a lot of respect for him after that. He was basically saying lets put objectivity to the wayside and instead concentrate on a narrative.

 

The "Story" of a Fight IS Tangible @ Times, but it Has NATHAN to Do w/WINNING the Fight...

George Foreman Won the "Story" Of his Fight w/Holyfield. Antonio Tarver Won the "Story" of his 1st Fight w/Roy...To a Lesser Degree, Chuck Wepner Won the "Story" of his Bout w/Ali...

They All LOST Those Fights Though...







REED

 

Yeah. It was not a point of view you would expect to hear from a real boxing fan.

 

Agree. But I don't think that is how max was thinking about it.

 

REED Vaguely Recalls Max Saying it, but Can't Remember What Bout it Was...

REED Loooooooooooooves Max, but if he was Insinuating the "Story" Should Be Factored into the Scoring of a Fight, he was Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay Offbase...

Jose Luis Castillo and Carlos Maidana Each Won the "Story" of their 1st Fights w/Floyd, yet Floyd Retired Undefeated...







REED

 

The problem is the story isn't true

It was against Jackie Graves ... at BEST, Pep won the round without throwing any power shots and because Graves couldn't hit him (even Pep never claimed to not have THROWN a punch... his claim was that he jabbed Graves but didn't really connect cleanly but that he had Graves missing so badly that the judges scored the round for him anyway)

Some insist even that is an exaggeration... Pep did win the fight handily but that idea that this event definitely took place or that it says anything about judges is ridiculous

 

And I should add that if you do effectively jab an opponent without throwing any power shots and you make the guy miss all his shots you SHOULD get the round

 

Grow up

 

'Preciate the Enlightenment...

Learning this Story ISN'T True Actually Makes REED Feel Better About his Favorite Sport...






REED

 

I felt the same when I discovered the truth about it

 

Whenever I ponder the age old question, "who is winning the story of fightbeat?"

Two words come to mind, love and land

 

Im pretty sure that he scores way more often in favour of the hometown guy. Probably doing this in order to not look too obviously corrupted

 

Im surprised you didnt knew this was false Reed

 

Unlike YOU, REED Doesn't Pretend to KNOW Every Fucking Thing, NOR Does REED Have an Innate Desire to Question/Challenge Every Bit of Information Presented to Him...







REED

 

Well the fact that you never questioned the veracity of rhis story shows how gullible you are

 

Or Maybe REED Took Ugo's Post @ Face Value, Since REED's Communicated w/Dude On and Off Site Since the Early 00's and Found Him to Be a CREDIBLE Source More Often Than Not???

Ugo's Never Beaten His Chest on What he's Doing in Finnish Boxing (Though he Probably COULD), He Said He KNOWS the Guy, Delivered the Information Matter of Factly and There DOESN'T Appear to Be Motive for Ugo to EMBELLISH His Account...

Has NATHAN to Do w/Being Gullible...The Story Itself Didn't Seem Implausible AND REED's Dick Doesn't Get Hard @ the Chance to Be Contrarian Just for the Fuck of It...





REED

 

Ugo is the one who talked about the pep story. Im not following you

 

Ugo Discussed a Finnish Judge in this Thread...No Mention of Pep that REED's Seen...



REED

 

Go read the thread again

 

Um, no I wasn't. I was talking about the Finnish guy who is definitely biased towards certain style of boxing, I never mentioned Pep

 

There should have been a few ???? at the end my phrase (meaning it wasn't you that mentionned Pep, but Reed)

Don't drink and post folk