Ever notice that outlets like hbo consistently join in the corrupt judging conspiracy by suggesting always that it's due to incompetence somehow? Lampley said the other night with a straight face that a possible solution to the bad decisions we're seeing is to supply every judge with a tv monitor. He actually expects us to believe that guys like herrera are routinely jobbed because the judges, sitting at ringside, don't have a clear enough picture of the fight. Lampley clearly has little respect for his viewers.
No, the thing is that fights actually DO look different when you watch them through TV monitor. It has been proved several times and I have written about this several times here, but once again: The guy who sits at ringside can tell better how hard the punches are, you don't see this as clearly through TV or if you sit further in the audience. Also from the ringside you can see how cleanly the punches land, are they sparsely blocked or in fact clean shots. Both are facts that any judge can tell you and also things I have noticed several times myself. Where this leads to is that a TV viewer (or a guy 10+ rows back in the audience) usually favors more the guy who punches and hustles a lot, whereas a ringside judge tends to favor the heavier puncher. And since boxing judging is a lot about personal taste, this difference can be a deciding one when you score a round. Now of course there is more to bad judging than this, there is incompetence and also some form of corruption (not necessarily direct one) going on so the TV monitors wouldn't solve it, and because of what I said before, using monitors could lead to more "wrong" decisions from fighters' perspectives (even though TV audiences might agree with them more) I don't think it is a good idea. But there is a valid point behind it
