Why are boxing judges incompetent?

[MrStayman]

In many fights there is a clear, correct way to score some rounds, yet judges give the round to the wrong man. Why is this?

I watched Taylor-Pavlik Round 1 a few times on 1/4 speed. Here are all the punches that landed:

Taylor:
2:52 - Jab
2:34 - Stiff elbow
2:25 - Glancing hook
2:09 - Jab
2:06 - Weak jab
2:01 - Glancing hook
1:46 - Jab
1:31 - Strong jab (Snapped head back)
1:09 - Hook to body
1:01 - Hook
0:56 - Strong jab
0:20 - Glancing hook

Pavlik:
2:36 - Weak body jab
2:30 - Strong jab (Snapped head back)
2:27 - Weak jab
2:21 - Jab
2:21 - Right hand to body
2:19 - Strong jab
2:14 - Jab
1:51 - Jab
1:48 - Strong jab
1:44 - Weak jab
1:43 - Clinch punch
1:42 - Clinch punch
1:40 - Clinch punch
1:37 - Clinch punch
1:20 - Jab, followed by flush right hand
1:18 - Jab
1:05 - Strong jab
1:02 - Glancing hook
0:57 - Glancing jab
0:46 - Right hand (not flush)
0:44 - Right hand to body
0:40 - Strong jab
0:29 - Jab
0:26 - Jab
0:24 - Measuring jab followed by flush right hand. Finished up with a headbutt.
0:23 - Weak jab
0:11 - Measuring jab followed by another right hand
0:10 - Measuring jab, followed by a stiff jab
0:05 - Right hand (not flush)

The only flush punches that Taylor landed were two jabs. Pavlik landed five flush jabs that snapped taylors head back. Pavlik also landed two flush right hands, and a couple other right hands that weren't flush, but did jolt Taylors head a bit.

The disparity here is clear cut, yet, the judges gave the round to Taylor :patsch:patsch

I understand that they don't have the luxury of slow motion replay, but they are professionals and paid to do their jobs :-(. It is ridiculous how they have no accountability for piss poor scoring.

Why do judges score rounds incorrectly so often??

Also, the biggest joke in boxing is DAN RAFAEL, who gave every round to Taylor except the 7th. Shouldn't he be fired for being such a dipshit??? Why the fuck does espn pay that fraud?

[Jose FM]

I had it 4 rounds to 2 for Pavlik, i can see how it could have gone either way, but 5-1 and 6-0 Taylor is ridiculous

[bmf95b]

Taylor was the IN HOUSE FIGHTER... C'mon guys you should know better tha that.

[theunderdog]

because some people pay them to be incompetent

[amhlilhaus]

I think it's because the athletic commissions don't hold them accountable. if the judges fuck up a fight, they should be called in to review the fight and explain like say in holyfield v. lewis 1 in the middle rounds lennox almost ko's holyfield, chases him all over the ring yet 2 of the judges give the round to holyfield. if they can't explain why they scored a fight logically then they should be put on probation, and if they have too many in a couple of years time frame then they should be suspended for a year, do it twice and they're barred. it's not too difficult, not saying it's easy to judge but some of the fights they score can't be any other reason than incompetence or they're bribed.

[McGrain]

They are born without souls. Some people think they are intentionally bred that way.

[Mendoza]

I had it 4 rounds to 2 for Pavlik, i can see how it could have gone either way, but 5-1 and 6-0 Taylor is ridiculous

It just goes to show the " Fix " was in for Taylor have Pavilk not knocked him out. We have seen thsi crap before. Tito vs De la Hoya comes to mind as the scoring in that fight was terrible with judges giving Ocsar the 12th just to make up for the BS in eariler rounds.

Boxing writers are getting ready to come up with a BS file list of poor judging with the hopes of listing the judge’s names on questionable score cards. The fans of boxing deserve good judges, not judges picked and paid by promoters and networks.

[bumdujour]

I think judges sitting at ringside is totally outdated.

they only get to see one angle of the fight. they need to sit in front of a tv that give them multi angles.

[crash]

ive allways thought judges should be watching the fights on monitors,away from the distractions of the crowd and such,

[Mendoza]

I think judges sitting at ringside is totally outdated.

they only get to see one angle of the fight. they need to sit in front of a tv that give them multi angles.

Have you ever sat at Ring side? You really get a feel of who is making the fight, and who is hurt. TV can't deliver this in the same way,

On the flip side, TV can offer better viewing angles and replay.

[bumdujour]

Have you ever sat at Ring side? You really get a feel of who is making the fight, and who is hurt. TV can't deliver this in the same way,

On the flip side, TV can offer better viewing angles and replay.

who is making the fight??? well, if the crowd is impartial, maybe.

but go to some european country where the whole nation is screaming everytime the local hero tries to throw a punch........then the judges who will not get to see every angle will get a real fucked up image of the fight.

thats the reason why there are so many "hometown decisions" in boxing!!

put the judge in a mute box with a tv, and you´ll get a fair result.

[gutto]

got to wonder why this happens all the time watching the fight on a screen could be the way foward. I would be the first to admit if your fav fighter is fighting it hard not to see thru rose tinted classes or be swayed by the crowd .judges must have fav fighters do we need non boxing fans as judges away from the fight. why should we all be accountable for our actions at work and these fucker are not

[nervousxtian]

Actually the bias here seems to be the original poster, who seems very biased towards Pavlik.

Give it up already.

[Dorfmeister]

Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely - there must be a feedback system cycle ( positive or negative) to put the ringside judging into a more "democratic" but still efficient system so that we get less debatable results... Not that it would erase "outside" influences and bias of course.

[MrStayman]

Actually the bias here seems to be the original poster, who seems very biased towards Pavlik.

Give it up already.No matter what fight I picked to demonstrate my example, someone would claim bias. That's why I took the time to record every punch that wasn't blocked or dodged. This gives objectivity, which makes any bias not matter.

I chose this fight because it was watched by everyone and still in everyone's memory. I took the time to record every punch, and double check, so that nobody could make the claim that judges are always competent.

[Zhaakal]

Sometimes they are bought. But i also think they should have younger judges, something like 40+ but it seems they only use guys who are 60+. Maybe the 60+ guys can't see if the punch landed or not becouse their eye sight is weakening.

[MrStayman]

A lot of you are saying that they are bought, which is the obvious conclusion to jump to. But, if you think about it, it seems dubious. Why would a promoter, for example, put their entire career and company on the line by bribing a judge? If word of bribery reached the public, that promoter would be ruined. It doesn't seem worth it.

But then again, these organizations are not above corruption. In fact, there was some corruption in the Pavlik match. One of the high ranking officials in the WBC (lead secretary or something) asked Pavlik before the match if he could have his trunks if Pavlik won. Pavlik declined. After the match, he asked again, and Pavlik again declined. But then he asked the right people, and somehow, got the trunks. When word reached the public, Pavlik got his trunks back, because making a request like this is illegal for a sanctioning body. The guy could have gone to prison for a year and had a $30,000 fine if prosecuted. The trunks are worth an estimated $25,000.

[MrStayman]

Sometimes they are bought. But i also think they should have younger judges, something like 40+ but it seems they only use guys who are 60+. Maybe the 60+ guys can't see if the punch landed or not becouse their eye sight is weakening.This defiinitely is a factor. Last season an old ref got suspended from the NBA because he disqualified a basket that was before the buzzer. I don't see it being a big enough factor to completely explain the problem though.

[MrStayman]

Have you ever sat at Ring side? You really get a feel of who is making the fight, and who is hurt. TV can't deliver this in the same way,

On the flip side, TV can offer better viewing angles and replay.This could be the $$ answer. If you "feel" that someone is making the fight, it may cloud objectivity. That is, you may not score based on connecting shots if one fighter "looks" better to you. It's hard to see what shots connect flush on tv in real time, and only when you slow the fight down to about 1/4 speed can you see everything that happens. It must be damn near impossible ringside.