Jump to content

Schaefer 1000% right on Hopkins rip off


RAZZ-MCFC
 Share

Recommended Posts

I long subscribed to the idea/theory that scoring controversies were grist for the boxing mill.

 

As of today, I have canceled that subscription.

 

For example, Juan Manuel Marquez and Manny Pacquiao fans continue to rant back and forth over who really won their two bouts between the Mexican counterpuncher and the Pinoy Idol.

 

Certainly, that backdrop of prior controversy is a spicy ingedient for a third bout which could take place if Pacman insists on flipping Bob Arum's May 7 bout script. I see a ray of light for those who hope Sugar Shane Mosley is dropped as Manny's next foe in favor of Juan Ma.

 

Marquez makes sense for the date, what with it being Cinco de Mayo weekend in Las Vegas.

 

I just think there's an internal debate going on within the Pacquiao camp and I think Arum's returning from the Philippines without naming Pacman's next foe is evidence of that, circumstantial evidence but evidence nonetheless.

 

But, whether Juan Ma gets the nod as Pacman's upcoming punchbag or Mosley does, I've changed my alleged mind about scoring in our sport/business.

 

The selection of officials is inherently rotten and so is the way fights are scored.

 

Bernard Hopkins less than grand larceny but still a theft majority draw after 12 rounds with almost 18 years younger Jean Pascal Saturday night in Quebec City is the latest reminder of the dismal offiating and scoring setup.

 

American judge Steve Morrow got it right, exactly right, with a 114-112 BHop tally. It was right because it was but, coincidentally, that was my off TV score and ditto for sharp-eyed, Yahoo scribe Kevin Iole.

 

Canadian judge Claude Pacquette (113-113) and Belgian veteran Daniel Van de Wiele (114-114) mucked it up with their deadlock votes.

 

Morrow's rounds scoring was 8-4, in favor of Hopkins, while the other two judges also gave more rounds to the old man than to Pacal, Pacquette having it 7-5 for BHop and Van de Wiele having it 6-5-1, his big goof somehow calling the 10th round, where Hopkins clearly won, even.

 

In other words, this Belgian waffled.

 

Golden Boy's Richard Schaefer was absolutely right in his postfight rant, saying:

 

“It’s really a shame, it’s a shame for Canada, it’s a shame for boxing to have a decision like that. We had Canadian people, Canadian fans come up to us and tell us he (Hopkins) won. That is what is wrong with boxing. He sure didn’t lose, I think if you think that, you don’t know what boxing means. Look at the scorecards; it happens all the time up here, that is what is wrong with boxing. It’s a disgrace. We are going to file a protest. The WBC will order an immediate rematch and we will see what other legal remedies we have because this is wrong. This is wrong.

 

“If you’re in the boxing business and give the 10th round to Jean Pascal, I think you should retire and look for another job. (note: 2 judges had Hopkins winning while Daniel Van de Wiele of Belgium had 10-10). Even the judge from Canada scored that round for Hopkins. Hopkins won that round, no matter what. Guess what,the guy from Belgium scored it a 10-10 round. How rare is that? If the guy from Belgium scores that round correct, we have a new undisputed light-heavyweight champion.

 

“What really jumps out to me is that 10th round. It is unexplainable to me. It is ridiculous.

 

“I did talk to Jose Sulaiman and he feels as well that this is highway robbery and that he will order that Jean Pascal will have to defend his title immediately against Bernard Hopkins.

 

“I don’t think that’s point here though. This is bad for the sport. It is bad for Pascal. If you guys think that Pascal helps himself with this kind of decision, then you’re wrong because boxing around the world is not going to embrace that decision very warmly.

 

You know I rarely cite Mr. Schaefer as a fountain of fistic wisdom but, in this instance, I jump into his foxhole to fight the good fight about the bad scoring in this one.

 

Why can't the judges give the fight to the guy who wins it no matter how close it is after 36 minutes?

 

The Red Sox can beat the Yankees, 8-7, or vice versa. But close victories in boxing in which the real "winner" goes away with the victory are rare indeed.

 

Naturally, I've got some ideas to remedy this problem:

 

1. EXTRA ROUND, CALL IT OVERTIME OR JUST MAKE FIGHTS 11 OR 13 ROUNDS -- Why not since draws are like trying to kiss Beyonce through a screen door? Who likes draws, nobody except promoters who can then put on a lazy man's rematch? Many years ago, California had five round bouts for neophyte pros. I don't know why five rounders were dropped but surely there were a lot less draws than there were in typical four rounders.

 

2. ELIMINATE GEOGRAPHICAL SELECTION OF OFFICIALS -- I'm told the BHop side and the Pascal side each picked two of the four officials. We wound up with a Canadian referee, one judge from Quebec, one from Belgium and one from the U.S. Van de Wiele is one of the better, highly experienced world title bout judges but do we really have to fly a guy from Europe in to score a fight between an American and a Canadian screen on Showtime? I'm not referring particularly to Van de Wiele on this but most Euro judges have a weakness for scoring more rounds "even" and winding up with draw final tallies than do judges on this side of the pond. The WBC and the other big alphabet groups need to stop talking about it and actually organize a Super Panel of, let's say, the best 12 officials, about nine judges and three referees, and take turns having them work the biggest bouts. That would eliminate this childish two Canadian, one American, one Belgian selection of officials and reward the best refs (example, Kenny Bayless) and best judges (Jerry Roth and Chuck Giampa, for example). (I know, I know, Giampa retired his pen and scorecard but maybe we can entice him back.)

 

3. REDRAW THE FRAMEWORK FOR SCORING -- We all thik we know what clean, effective punching is but many judges analyze that differently. And what person not named Harold or Julie Lederman even knows what the chilched "ring generalship" means? I mean it is not immediately recognizable. Maybe it's time to factor in the punch stat, CompuBox numbers into the scoring of fights. Are those numbers worthy or worthless, just ornamentation for telecasts? If they're valid, shouldn't they have some place in each judge's computation?

 

I'm sure this is an issue I'll be coming back to you and, if you care about boxing, you will also.

 

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=34013

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10 point must system is flawed to buggery a close round can be 10-9, 10-10 or 9-10 while a relatively 1 sided round is also a 10-9, me and BB spoke about how he scores 10-8's but we should uses those other numbers more often. A close 3 minutes with a slight winner shouldn't be scored the same as a 1 sided round where a fighter isn't dropped, a fighter doing nothing in a round shouldn't be able to go "oh well I'll get 9 points for seeing the round through".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10 point must system is flawed to buggery a close round can be 10-9, 10-10 or 9-10 while a relatively 1 sided round is also a 10-9, me and BB spoke about how he scores 10-8's but we should uses those other numbers more often. A close 3 minutes with a slight winner shouldn't be scored the same as a 1 sided round where a fighter isn't dropped, a fighter doing nothing in a round shouldn't be able to go "oh well I'll get 9 points for seeing the round through".

 

exactly

 

if there's a round where a fighter does pretty much nothing bar throw a few punches compared to the other fighter, i think they deserve an 8, like Pascal did in at least 5-6 of the rounds on Saturday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The result will hopefully see defensive fighters doing more, I know the style has it's fighters that let opponents tire themselves out by hitting the guard for 9 rounds then come on strong, but they should need to go out for the stoppage in the latter rounds if they want to give 8 rounds away. You shouldn't be "rewarded" 9 points for not fighting, even if it's your "tactics".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a fight is wafer thin and evenly contested for an entire 12 round bout, then I don't have a problem with a draw.

I hate to see draws, but when it's a fair result, it's a fair result, and it would be wrong to split two fighters on the most marginal of things, when reality is there's nothing between them.

Incidentally, I scored the 10th round of Hopkins vs Pascal a 10-10, as neither guy did enough to win it, and they both had their good moments & flurries. Without rewatching it, I wouldn't say it was as clearcut for Hopkins as you say.

Judges don't get the option of rewatching a fight to make sure though, and have to make a call based on what they see live.

Hopkins clearly won more rounds in the fight, which made the draw seem less feasible based on what you see in the whole fight, but ultimately the knockdowns cost him, and again I had it 114-114 even.

I'm not saying I'm right, but a REAL controversy would have been Hopkins winning every round and losing on the scorecards, not a debatable draw.

This result was fair enough in my eyes, and though it does definitely warrant a rematch, the controversy surrounding it is unwarranted imo.

 

An 11 or 13 round fight can also end up even, as there doesn't have to be a 10-9 in every round, and it doesn't take account of 10-8's or less, so it's definitely not the solution.

 

Imo, it "shouldn't" matter where a judge is from. They should be judging impartially and fairly, and thought I accept this is not always the case, nationality should have nothing to do with it.

There is a lot of corruption going on within every sanctioning body, because they govern themselves.

If there was an overall body presiding over all judges and organisations, then they might be less inclined to unfairly favour a particular fighter, certainly when it could cost them their job.

Judging levels need to improve, because poor or corrupt judges are never pulled up for their scores and asked to clarify their scorecards.

 

As for Compubox numbers affecting the results of a fight, I think it's a very very bad idea.

It just means that every guy with fast hands is going to win 99% of their fights, while the tougher harder hitting guys will struggle to get decisions, despite the vast difference in technique and damage they are dealing out to their opponent.

You don't have to land more shots to win a fight. You have to land the BETTER punches to win a fight, and no computer is going to accurately realise this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to land better shots under this current system, you just have to "win" more points >_

 

The current system simply encourages fighters to be consistent.

There's no point in turning up for half a fight.

If you're good enough to dominate a fighter for 6 rounds, then you should be good enough to put the effort in and do the same for an extra round or two to seal it.

 

If you're landing the better punches in a round, you should get the point for the round.

You only get a winning number of points by doing enough over a full 12 rounds though, and winning more than half the contest.

(Or "should" at least - there have been plenty of examples of poor judging where it hasn't been reflected, but that is not fault of the system).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to land better shots under this current system, you just have to "win" more points >_

 

The current system simply encourages fighters to be consistent.

There's no point in turning up for half a fight.

If you're good enough to dominate a fighter for 6 rounds, then you should be good enough to put the effort in and do the same for an extra round or two to seal it.

 

If you're landing the better punches in a round, you should get the point for the round.

You only get a winning number of points by doing enough over a full 12 rounds though, and winning more than half the contest.

(Or "should" at least - there have been plenty of examples of poor judging where it hasn't been reflected, but that is not fault of the system).

 

So what did Campillo have to do against Shumenov? He landed more, he landed the better cleaner shots, he clearly dominanted more than 6 rounds. Whats better landing 2:1 or even 3:1 or landing the slightly better shots? How many rounds should a fighter need to win? What constitutes a "better" punch? Power? Accuracy? Effect of the punch? If you land the better punches in 5 rounds but are clearly out landed in 7 should you get the decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to land better shots under this current system, you just have to "win" more points >_

 

The current system simply encourages fighters to be consistent.

There's no point in turning up for half a fight.

If you're good enough to dominate a fighter for 6 rounds, then you should be good enough to put the effort in and do the same for an extra round or two to seal it.

 

If you're landing the better punches in a round, you should get the point for the round.

You only get a winning number of points by doing enough over a full 12 rounds though, and winning more than half the contest.

(Or "should" at least - there have been plenty of examples of poor judging where it hasn't been reflected, but that is not fault of the system).

 

So what did Campillo have to do against Shumenov? He landed more, he landed the better cleaner shots, he clearly dominanted more than 6 rounds. Whats better landing 2:1 or even 3:1 or landing the slightly better shots? How many rounds should a fighter need to win? What constitutes a "better" punch? Power? Accuracy? Effect of the punch? If you land the better punches in 5 rounds but are clearly out landed in 7 should you get the decision?

 

 

Again though, you're confusing a flaw in the system with some blatant judging mistakes or corruption.

I would go with corruption, given they already gave Shumenov one chance to legitimately get the win and for some reason felt he needed another chance at it.

When he failed again, they gave him the win anyway.

 

You can't say that one bad judging decision warrants a change in the whole scoring system.

The system needs rid of those judges who couldn't score a fight fairly if they were slapped in the face with the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was picking out an obvious one, could pick one of of thousands. John v Juarez II is another one, John won the opening 6 rounds clearly and the last 6 were close, most seemed to think Johns took some of them, though they were close enough to give either way. You could argue John blew his load, or you could argue that Johns early dominance should count for more than 6 close rounds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the posts above and agree with some and disagree with others.

 

I do think scoring could be revolutionised somewhat. It does seem unfair that a boxer can batter his opponent for 3 minutes but fails to get a anything more than a 10-9 score whilst the opponent might win a close round and get the exact same score.

 

Something there could be looked at.

 

In rugby, teams will get bonus points depending on how many tries they score. And i know Arsene Wenger, a few years ago, said he'd be up for having the same idea in football (soccer). Like if a team scores 4 or more goals for example in a game, they get a bonus point.

 

It would certainly open up football teams to be more attacking, like it was originally designed to do with rugby teams.

 

However, i don't think boxers should be forced out of their comfort zones and forced to fight like Arturo Gatti or Manny Pacquiao if they aren't like that by nature. That is crazy.

 

We can't expect Bolton Wanderers to play like Barcelona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the scoring system as a problem. It works well. Most of the time its the person watching getting it wrong and that person is a judge.

 

well said goodp//

 

 

as for pascal-hopkins, it was hardly a robbery in my opinion... a close fight that could have gone either way. in fact, a draw was probably more fair than a victory either way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...