Removing bad judges in boxing - why is it not done more often?

[Blastbeat]

I was thinking about this subject after seeing UFC 305 this past weekend.

If you didn't watch it, there was a heavyweight fight between Tai Tuivasa and Jairzinho Rozenstruik that went to a decision. to pretty much everyone watching, Jairzinho had won.
but one judge unbelievably scored it 30-27 for Tai. the other two judges rightly scored it for Jairzinho and the right man won the split decision. but the 30-27 for Tai was so awful that the judge was removed from the booth during the card. he was supposed to judge the co-main event that night but the Aussie commission gave him the boot. its not likely he will judge MMA again anytime soon. i thought this was the right decision.

why do boxing commissions not do this more often? off the top of my head, Adelaide Byrd is rightly vilified for her horrible scorecards for Floyd vs Canelo and the 1st Canelo-GGG fight. she still judges fights regularly. why?

maybe this has been done in boxing before. if it has, could you guys name some specific instances? i feel like if the risk of being pulled off a boxing card for a bad scorecard was present, judges would be less likely to turn in bad ones.

 

[treelo]

because removing judges for bad scorecards is just encouraging them to go with the crowd or what they think people should score

an honest judge will score the fight how they see it, if its different to everyone else, thats ok, and thats why there are 3 of them judging it

plus, Byrd didnt score the Mayweather - Canelo fight

and also, people only mention the bad scorecards, nobody knows the judges names who score the fights as most people see them, she looks like a very competent judge, just because a few of her high profile fights havent matched the narrative, it doesnt mean she is a bad judge

https://boxrec.com/en/judge/401967

 

[Blastbeat]

because removing judges for bad scorecards is just encouraging them to go with the crowd or what they think people should score

an honest judge will score the fight how they see it, if its different to everyone else, thats ok, and thats why there are 3 of them judging it

plus, Byrd didnt score the Mayweather - Canelo fight

and also, people only mention the bad scorecards, nobody knows the judges names who score the fights as most people see them, she looks like a very competent judge, just because a few of her high profile fights havent matched the narrative, it doesnt mean she is a bad judge

https://boxrec.com/en/judge/401967

i confused Adelaide with CJ Ross, good call.
and its not a "narrative" - go watch Canelo-GGG 1 and then tell me how you score it 118-110 for Canelo. its a bad scorecard thats inexplicably wide.
MMA has bad judges that unfortunately still judge but theyre known - people like Doug Crosby, Cecil Peoples and Chris Lee. but i dont see that same ire for poor judges in boxing. its almost like there's momentary outrage and then its swept under the rug.

in terms of going along with what the crowd wants to see - that is EXACTLY how that UFC judge fucked up. Tai was the hometown guy; people have accused the judge of favoring him because of that.
interesting aside - i found an article talking about judge Howie Booth's dismissal and there is criticism directed at Byrd for her judging of some UFC fights too. so im not alone in thinking she's not great.

“Not Worth Keeping” – Team Dana White Breaks Silence on Judge Howie Booth’s Removal From Kai Kara-France vs. Steve Erceg Fight at UFC 305

Dana White and his team came out with a strong statement after removing Howie Booth from the UFC 305 fight card for scoring a bout wrong

www.essentiallysports.com

a bad decision in recent memory - Foster vs Robson Conceicao. my boxing knowledge is mid-level but even i knew Foster shouldve won that fight.
if we wanna go back further, Holyfield-Valuev's decision was so bad the WBA made the judges watch the fight again and re-score it. i cant recall that ever happening in a large MMA promotion.

if a judge consistently produces scorecards that are off the mark, then i dont see any reason they should continue to judge.

 

[treelo]

i dont think they do though, one or two fights scattered over lots and lots of fights being scored isnt consistent, its just people looking at SOME of the fights

go look at Byrds record, she is pretty consistent with most other judges in 90% of her fights, now if the accusation is of wrongdoing that is a different question but that needs proof to prove

 

[mozfonky]

most "bad" judging has been political in my opinion, not due to incompetence. And judging is pretty subjective in close, competitive fights. People still argue over Leonard/Hagler, Ali/Norton 3, Chavez/Whitaker, Leonard/Hearns2. But, more often, hometown decisions, or the long time champ will get all the benefit of the doubt. A lot of it's not right, that's why Hagler started holding up his fists and calling them his judges and he was wise to do it because he got shorted when Duran and Leonard made the final bells. In those cases, the big name value gave them the benefit of the doubt over the longtime champ, backwards.

 

[SuwoopBangin]

That was the first time I've seen it happen. I think it was good. Boxing definitely needs that to happen more. That fight was NOT close from any angle. Not at all. Why should judges get free reign to make horrible decisions in decidedly clear, lopsided fights then continue judging for the rest of the night? There needs to be consequences.

 

[treelo]

most "bad" judging has been political in my opinion, not due to incompetence. And judging is pretty subjective in close, competitive fights. People still argue over Leonard/Hagler, Ali/Norton 3, Chavez/Whitaker, Leonard/Hearns2. But, more often, hometown decisions, or the long time champ will get all the benefit of the doubt. A lot of it's not right, that's why Hagler started holding up his fists and calling them his judges and he was wise to do it because he got shorted when Duran and Leonard made the final bells. In those cases, the big name value gave them the benefit of the doubt over the longtime champ, backwards.

i think we also have to factor in that most people now who are "armchair" judges, are watching fight in what is the best possible position on a screen, the judges are sat at ringside with ropes, refs, fighters in the way and a lot of people dont understand that because all they have ever known or watched are TV fights

 

[Misery Signals]

When Luis Ortiz fought Tony Thompson there was controversy over the score card even though it didn't go to a decision. Luis knocked down Tony in the first round but one judge only gave him a 10-9 anyway and then Ortiz knocked him down again in the third the same judge outright gave the round to Thompson. They did investigate him which resulted in him retiring after.

 

[mozfonky]

i think we also have to factor in that most people now who are "armchair" judges, are watching fight in what is the best possible position on a screen, the judges are sat at ringside with ropes, refs, fighters in the way and a lot of people dont understand that because all they have ever known or watched are TV fights

I guess, in the old days they used to have refs judging fights. Anyway, in the still disputed Ali/Norton3 fight, Arthur Mercanted gave it to Ali by a round. Now, Arthur was steadfast, honest so far as I know but almost everyone would disagree with he and the other judges opinion on that fight. Even Ali can be seen on video saying he lost. Still, Arthur seemed to sincerely think Ali won by a round, the last round. So subjective and it's probably a good thing refs don't get a vote anymore, they have enough on their minds during a fight.

Bottom line is, it's too easy to rationalize corrupt judging in this sport and make it seem innocent. Then, we all have bias' i've mentioned many times how the Whitaker Chavez fight was never as one sided as I'd always heard it was, I watched it years later and it was an 8-4 fight for whitaker in my mind. An 8-4 fight isn't that one sided, change a couple of rounds and it's a draw, if they were pick-em rounds, that would make sense. At any rate, we often call things "robbery" when our man didn't get the win. In many cases, it's just a close fight nothing like a robbery. Hagler wasn't "robbed" in the Leonard fight, it was a close fight that he still should have won but it's not like Leonard didn't do a thing to win.

 

[treelo]

I guess, in the old days they used to have refs judging fights. Anyway, in the still disputed Ali/Norton3 fight, Arthur Mercanted gave it to Ali by a round. Now, Arthur was steadfast, honest so far as I know but almost everyone would disagree with he and the other judges opinion on that fight. Even Ali can be seen on video saying he lost. Still, Arthur seemed to sincerely think Ali won by a round, the last round. So subjective and it's probably a good thing refs don't get a vote anymore, they have enough on their minds during a fight.

Bottom line is, it's too easy to rationalize corrupt judging in this sport and make it seem innocent. Then, we all have bias' i've mentioned many times how the Whitaker Chavez fight was never as one sided as I'd always heard it was, I watched it years later and it was an 8-4 fight for whitaker in my mind. An 8-4 fight isn't that one sided, change a couple of rounds and it's a draw, if they were pick-em rounds, that would make sense. At any rate, we often call things "robbery" when our man didn't get the win. In many cases, it's just a close fight nothing like a robbery. Hagler wasn't "robbed" in the Leonard fight, it was a close fight that he still should have won but it's not like Leonard didn't do a thing to win.

agreed, and it all depends on what the judges are looking for, flashy shots, hard shots, ring control, assertiveness

there is a criteria for scoring fights but opinions come into play at the end of the day, which is why we see so many people complaining about decisions, some people are looking for different things than others, the judges arent robots..and whether they may or may not have been bumped up to the very best hotel in Vegas and had a few extra bits and bobs on the way...which nobody can ever prove...thats life

 

[deucesarewild]

Because crooked promoters want these guys to judge the fights.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

That was the first time I've seen it happen. I think it was good. Boxing definitely needs that to happen more. That fight was NOT close from any angle. Not at all. Why should judges get free reign to make horrible decisions in decidedly clear, lopsided fights then continue judging for the rest of the night? There needs to be consequences.

I love Tai Tuivasa but he lost that 30-27, even giving him a round was a stretch IMO. i didn't know they had recourse to remove a judge, was good in this situation but that could be open to corruption of course.

 

[mozfonky]

agreed, and it all depends on what the judges are looking for, flashy shots, hard shots, ring control, assertiveness

there is a criteria for scoring fights but opinions come into play at the end of the day, which is why we see so many people complaining about decisions, some people are looking for different things than others, the judges arent robots..and whether they may or may not have been bumped up to the very best hotel in Vegas and had a few extra bits and bobs on the way...which nobody can ever prove...thats life

I've seen a lot of bad decisions, the only things I've seen done were filing complaints or an investigation, never a changed decision.

 

[mozfonky]

I remember an article where sugar ray leonard said, "I never understood the way they judge" after it mentioned how in a few of his fights, he was behind when a stoppage came. The Hearns fight was one, which was acceptable as Hearns boxed and won the slower rounds but I think they said he was behind in the Ayub Kalule fight too, which is surprising. It was a tough fight for ray but with him being the golden goose, you'd think they'd always go his way in a close fight. Ray was always kinda resented though by some people. First because he was seen as someone just given everything, then, later on because of how he treated his opponents in negotiations and played the prima donna.

 

[treelo]

Leonard was rightfully behind in that first fight with Hearns, he was getting battered in that fight and his corner knew it as well

 

[mozfonky]

Leonard was rightfully behind in that first fight with Hearns, he was getting battered in that fight and his corner knew it as well

maybe, he was giving up too many rounds, that's why dundee chewed his ass. However, the way I saw it, Leonard was forcing the fight and doing the most damage but giving away too many rounds. Kalule was a bit different, he was really taking some shots in that one.

 

[Gladiator24]

Because then Eddie hearns money will have gone to waste

 

[Seano]

Fans think most decisions are robberies. What are they going to do, fire judges every time a popular fighter loses a close fight?

 

[burningspear]

maybe, he was giving up too many rounds, that's why dundee chewed his ass. However, the way I saw it, Leonard was forcing the fight and doing the most damage but giving away too many rounds. Kalule was a bit different, he was really taking some shots in that one.

Yeah Hearns was doing well but when Ray turned it up he always had the edge, teeing off and having Tommy all over the place. The rematch was similar sans the KDs.

 

[djacobox372]

The bad judge are sadly the preferred ones.

MMA judging is just as bad, it's extremely rare for a judge to be called on even the most obvious BS... my guess is that the judge was pulled not because his decision was bad, but because it wasn't bad in the right direction.