Why Do Bad Decisions Keep Happening in Boxing

by Evans on Dec 26, 2008 12:20 AM EST

The heavyweight Championship fight between Holyfield vs Valuev heavyweight was another bad decision in boxing. This happens way too often in professional boxing. There have been numerous bad decisions throughout the history of the sport. There are several reasons why bad decisions happen in boxing. Those reasons may include the style of the fighter, the angle of the fight that the judge is seeing the boxing match from or corrupt judges.

via www.wbcboxing.com

First, a major reason that there are bad decisions in boxing matches is because of the different styles of boxers. There are certain styles that boxing judges like less such as boxers with a defensive style. For example, Bernard Hopkins, Pernell Whitaker, Juan Manuel Marquez and Winky Wright are all excellent defensive fighters. However, they all have been in boxing matches that ended in bad decisions. On the other hand, boxing judges favor the boxers that fight with an offensive style that is very aggressive. To illustrate, judges always seem to favor offensive fighters such as Manny Pacquiao, Joe Calzaghe and Ricky Hatton. Those particular fighters are rarely ever the victim of a bad decision. Likewise, Pacquiao edged out a decision in his last fight at super featherweight against the defensive fighter Juan Manuel Marquez and that particular match was so close either fighter could have been declared the winner.

The location of a boxing judge when they are watching the fight can make a huge difference. If the judge is watching the fight from a bad angle or if someone is blocking them then their judgment of the fight won't be as good. This is definitely a problem that needs to be avoided at all costs in professional boxing matches. This actual has been a factor in previous professional fights. For example, one of the judges in the Lennox Lewis vs Holyfield boxing match had bad seating during the fight. "After watching a replay, Williams testified in New York that she would have scored it differently had photographers not impeded her view"(sportsillustrated.cnn.com).

Then, there is always the hint of corruption when the judges make a horrible decision. However, wrongdoing in judging of boxing is hard to prove. Many people believed corruption is how De La Hoya got the decision over Sturm. There was a lot at stake in that fight if De La Hoya was declared the loser the mega fight between De La Hoya and Hopkins would have never happened. It was a bad decision. The ringside stats showed Sturm landing 234 of 541 punches to 188 of 792 for De La Hoya. Sturm thought the decision was so horrible that he filed a protest with the Nevada Athletic Commission over his loss to De La Hoya (www.covers.com). The same type of scandal was hinted at in the Pernell Whitaker vs Julio Cesar Chavez fight. Sports Illustrated featured a cover entitled "Robbed" after the boxing match. That fight had a lot at stake because Chavez was 80-0 and a Mexican legend. It seems that no one was willing to give Chavez his first lost even though he clearly lost the fight. After the fight even Chavez supports were stunned that the fight was declared a majority draw.

Therefore, boxing will always have controversial decisions. And we all know that scoring a boxing match is a subjective judgement. However, if boxing judges just see the reasons why there are bad decisions made in boxing that may help lower the amount of horrible decisions that are made in boxing matches. This can be the first step in cleaning up a sport that many people still believe is corrupt.

Works Cited

<http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/boxing/1999/lewis_holyfield/news/1999/11/05/holyfield2_judges_ap/index.html>

<http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?TID=46&theArt=25931&t=0>

FanPosts are user-created content written by community members of Bad Left Hook, and are generally not the work of our editors. Please do not source FanPosts as the work of Bad Left Hook.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good stuff

The only things I’d disagree with is that Bernard Hopkins and Juan Manuel Marquez have been on the wrong side of bad decisions. Both have been on the wrong side of CLOSE decisions, but in each of the cases (Hopkins v Taylor x2, Hopkins v Calzaghe, JMM v Pacquiao x2, JMM v John) it was a close fight that could have been scored either way, and just the fight scores against them. FWIW, other than scoring Hopkins-Taylor II a draw, I scored all those fights the same way the majority of the judges did. Bad decisions are more like Hoya-Sturm, Valuev-Holyfield, Casamayor-Santa Cruz, etc. where there’s no reasonable way to have scored the fight for the winner.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 26, 2008 1:56 PM EST reply actions

Here is an idea

Smaller gloves = more knock outs. Did anyone see all the KOs in the UFC this weekend? Those guys are terrible boxers but smaller gloves makes lesser punches look much more effective. Take it out of the judges hands.

Haha

by ryanwk628 on Dec 29, 2008 11:07 AM EST reply actions

One reason...

No “close” decision ever goes the wrong way in the eyes of boxing fans. When a fighter clearly and obviously wins seven rounds in a fight with no knockdowns or deductions, and the decision goes the other way, all anyone on the fora ever says is: “It was close so I can’t argue with it…” or something like that. Sometimes close fights do have CLEAR winners. So many fans are actually DEFENDING bad decisions.

BTW, there were so many KOs in the UFC moreso because many of those guys don’t have good chins/defense and have to worry about being taken to the ground (not to mention bonuses paid out for KOs). The way I understand it, bigger gloves actually lead to MORE KOs not less, due to the fact they protect your hand and allow you to punch harder for longer. Lighter gloves lead to more broken hands and less punchin in the face.

It's not the size of the dog... It's whats in the fight of Bernard Hopkins! -BHOP

by blackpage on Jan 20, 2009 12:08 PM EST reply actions