How Did Gale Van Hoy Spend The Money?

By now you've heard, and read about, the outrageous and ridiculous scoring by judge Gale Van Hoy for Saturday's (8/22/09) Paulie Malignaggi vs Juan Diaz fight.

http://fightbeat.com/news_details.php?NW=22165

 

You don't fix a fight with a 10-2 scorecard, especially when you could give later rounds to the loser.

 

Que?

 

He's saying Gale Van Hoy is incompetent but not dirty...................I guess. :dunno:



My theory is he's just an old codger who doesn't give a shit, can't see and just listens to crowd reaction, or both.

 

well he sure is "incompetent" for the same guy over and over...

 

What a strange article...

MTF :dunno:

 

buster paris is I believe a 13 year old hermaphrodite. At least thats the maturity level I gauge

 

Damn, I didn't even read that.


That is strange.............and not in a HaHa sort of way. :notallthere:

 

I'm not saying he is incompetent or dirty, but if he is dirty, then he IS incompetent. Because you don't fix a fight with a 118-110 card. Make sense?

Fact is, a lot of people are bitching about the scoring, but I am yet to see any individual cards (except Lederman's) or the judge's cards.

If you are going to criticize a decision, you should do it by how individual rounds were incorrectly scored, not by the final tally.

 

I would guess a 13 year-old hermaphrodite might be a little more worldly then you might think. :nono:

 

I didn't gauge a maturity level. I just read a complete load of bizarre garbage

MTF :notallthere:

 

Paul Malignaggi undisputedly won rounds 1,3,6,9,10,11.

So lets give Juan every benefit of the doubt in the other rounds...rounds for the most part where he was being controlled and outlanded 2 to 1.

For Gale Van Hoy to come up with 10 rounds, not only does he have to give Juan every close round, he has to take away 4 clear Malignaggi rounds.

Leonard Hagler was fixed by a judge flown in from obscurity who scored the bout 118-110 for Leonard if I remember right. That person was obviously given the job to score it for the pre-arranged guy, and that is the definition of corruption.

Yes someone like Jerry Roth in Trinidad/DLH looks more corrupt because of the rounds he gave to DLH, but both insances are corruption, this one in a more flagrant way.

 

well along with that chinese guy selling articles out of his hot dog stand, its good to see new content on the homepage::

 

That means he's incompetent either way. Get him out of there.

I'll be honest. Paulie Mags fights put me to sleep so I didn't watch it very closely. I was heavily rooting for Juan to win this fight.

I was drifting a bit watching the fight so I had no interest in keeping a scorecard. I saw Juan and Paulie flip flopping the first 8 rounds or so and Paulie take control down the last 3-4 rounds or so.

When I first heard the scorecards I thought Paulie had won it because the judges are usually widely divergent on controversial fights and the unpopular winner usually does so via split decision.

118-110?????


When you reach a certain age in some states an eye test is mandatory to renew your drivers license. The same thing should be done for Boxing judges in Texas.

 

Good start. Do you know which rounds Lederman gave to each fighter?

What other rounds did you score for Malig?

 

I'm not so sure he was.

Let's see how many rds are out there that 'couldn't' be scored for Diaz. Malignaggi is such a weak puncher, that being ringside it's possible that he wouldn't get credit for landed punches like he does on tv.

 

I don't care to watch the fight again to confirm your rounds but I clearly remember Paulie dominating the 12th round also. Something I thought strange because I figured Juan would come out blazing to try and win the last round or get a KO and Paulie would be dancing around and probably give the round away expecting to win the fight.

He did the exact opposite and still got fucked.

 

I gave him the 12th also.

Harold Lederman is an idiot.

there were only 3 clear Diaz rounds if my memory serves... 2,4,7. In each he landed a barrage of good shots at some points in the rounds, and Paulie wasn't as effective.

Barring those rounds, you could give every round to Paulie, and at the worst, I think you have to give him 6/7 rounds, depending on the 12th, which was in retrospect a very solid round for Malignaggi.

 

Lederman gave Paulie the 12th also. The scorecard they flashed up was incorrect and he corrected it on-air.

 

For all we know, the guy didn't even keep track of the scores he was turning in. Maybe he just gave as many rounds as he could in order to make sure Diaz would win on his card.

Also, he'd run the risk of looking even fishier if he started giving rounds to Paulie that he clearly didn't deserve. He's better off appearing to be incompetent than he is corrupt.

I don't think you can determine whether a judge is corrupt or not through intellect or deduction.

There's so many possibile and deliberate signals a corrupt judge or judges could be trying to give with their score-cards. For example, Van Hoye wasn't from Texas. So the fact that his score-card was so awful takes the focus away from Texas and the fact that the other two judges scored it for Diaz too when most people can't find seven rounds that Diaz won.

It's much better for the sport if we focus on one individual who usually doesn't judge in Texas than on Texas as a whole and the fact that out of town fighters there don't get a fair shake.

To say the decision couldn't possibly be corrupt because it's 118-110 is probably exactly what they want you to say in response to those claiming it's a crazily corrupt score. Just as long as we're talking about a judge who's not from Texas and their score-cards, Texas stays out of the conversation.

The fact is, Diaz didn't win that fight. And there were more than one judge who got it wrong. There were three. And all three are corrupt in my opinion.

 

Is this what passes for journalism on this site? wow.

 

LOL, counterintuitive thinking at it's best.

Even DLH, who promotes Diaz and is supposedly trying to line him up for a Hatton bout, was basically put in the position of having to same something about the scorecard.

 

The ridiculous scorecard doesn't reflect incompetence. I believe it is just what Paulie said it was. It was Van Hoy getting even with Paulie Malignaggi.

In case you guys missed it Paulie did several interviews before the fight and singled out Van Hoy as G's gopher. That score card Hoy turned in is a direct counter attack to Paulie and it says something about the sport that it isn't being investigated as such.

This also shows what a lack of unprofessionalism Van Hoy has that he would completely forego doing his job so he that he can stick one to a fighter who called him out. He should be docked his entire pay, fined and banned from the sport forever.

Here's Van Hoy's interview over it:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5699-NY-B...i-judge-De-La-Hoyas-right-my-scoring-was-wide

 

I thought it was the judge who scored it 115-113 who Paulie called the personal gopher.

 

i think you're right. it was Caiz who he said was G's gopher.

 

Whoops. Van Hoy is from Texas apparently. Caiz is from California.

 

Well regardless of who he actually called the gopher he mentioned both guys names as not being the most reliable of judges so either way my points still stand. I don't think who he actually called a gopher is even really important unless you guys sole purpose is to make me look like some fucking idiot which I don't appreciate. :flip:

 

what a stupid article and a stupid author.

 

This isn't counterintuitive thinking at its best, it's just being obtuse. You don't fix a fight and not know what the score is. And the last few rounds could have gone to paulie if you wanted. I'm still waiting to see official cards.

 

If it's obtuse to you it's because all I've done is throw out several possible explanations as to how Van Hoy's score-card can be reconciled with a corrupt agenda. All I've done is the opposite of what you did. You've provided a ratonale for why Van Hoy's score-card is NOT corrupt. I've provided multiple rationale for why it MAY be corrupt.

Yours is no more conclusive than mine.