WBC Conference Day 2 Recap
by Waldo Rastel on Dec 14, 2011 8:30 PM EST
in Boxing News Analysis
Email
Print
Where day one was all about the pomp and circumstance, day two was where the commission got down to business. Bob Newman of Fight News reported the ceremonies of the day. This day focused on several important issues including the use of instant replay and implementation of open scoring. But before we get to talk about these issues, Jose Sulaiman complained about the lack of representation from the state commissions. The only commission that bothered to show up was the Nevada commission because the conference is in Las Vegas. Here might be the reason why they aren't there, they are all working. California just had a meeting to decide on Dawson-Hopkins "fight," New Jersey is in the middle of fight week, and I don't think NYSAC really wants to show up to a WBC conference.
One of the themes of the day was to rag on the United States. The US decided to not implement open scoring (because open scoring is stupid) and not to implement instant replay. However, it seems that the vote passed everywhere else in the world. So have fun with announced scoring after 4 and 8 rounds, letting fighters know that they are getting screwed during the fight. Then there was some whining about the United States appointing local officials to judge and ref fights. Agent Don Majeski pointed to the example of Khan-Peterson where all of the officials were from the local commission.
"If the United States wanted to appoint four officials from North Korea, they could do so, but they choose not to do so. We used to have international referees like Stan Christodoulou and others officiate title fights in the U.S. But no more. Maybe we need to go back to the future."
Nevermind that Stan Christodoulou judges a good amount of fights in California like the Abraham-Ward fight, but yeah USA sucks.
The biggest highlight of the day was the "let's yell at the refs because they are what's wrong with boxing. Look at them not us" portion. In an attempt to capture a Captain Obvious award, Sulaiman pointed out that judges need to pay attention to the action at all times, stressing concentration. This was followed by an image of a judge talking on a cellphone during a fight. Facepalm.
Finally a string of refs admitted to mistakes in high profile fights. Robert Byrd criticized Lawrence Cole's performance (I mean who doesn't criticize Cole) in the Margarito-Pacquiao fight, saying that Margo was not competitive and the fight should have been stopped. Next up was Russell Mora who admitted that he should have stopped the Donaire-Montiel fight on the first knockdown. Apparently when Montiel got up from the knock down he was grunting and couldn't bring his hands up. Mora let it go on and then stopped it quite quickly after Donaire swarmed the doozy Montiel.
"Had one more serious punch landed, Montiel could have been killed," stated Mora. "It was a learning experience, and I can take cues from my colleagues like Kenny Bayliss and others."
Then the other refs in attendance lauded Mora ‘for his honesty and integrity in facing the fire.' Mora is the terrible ref that also allowed Agbeko's groin to be abused by Mares. In my opinion, Mora is the worst ref in boxing right now, surpassing Lawrence Cole. That's about it for Day 2. If I can find anything for Day 3 I'll try to post it today or tomorrow.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nevermind that Stan Christodoulou judges a good amount of fights in California like the Abraham-Ward fight
Christodoulou did judge that fight, but I wouldn’t say he judges a “good amount” of fights in California by any means. And that fight only had an international referee (Luis Pabon) because Abraham refused to fight Ward with a California referee. Not that it made any real difference or anything, but nobody was intending to put a neutral referee in that fight until Abraham balked.
Anyway, the point is, they should probably do that more often, bring in respected international referees and judges instead of appointing locals.
Mora is a horrible referee, and it’s nice that he admitted he could have gotten Montiel seriously hurt, but he’s still a horrible referee.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
open scoring world wide except here? I hate that. How can they do that?
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
It seems like they gave the nations the right of refusal. The US refused. It was unclear whether there would be semi-open scoring where there would tell the corner but not the crowd or fighters, or if they were just not going to do open scoring at all.
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
by Waldo Rastel on Dec 14, 2011 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
The way Waldo phrased it seems like it will be open scoring and instant replay, is that the case?
The US decided to not implement open scoring (because open scoring is stupid) and not to implement instant replay. However, it seems that the vote passed everywhere else in the world
"He's still a very strong fighter, but I am way better than he is" - Miguel Cotto
Instant replay seems to be a go for everywhere that is not the US. Open scoring is a little more of a thorny issue that I tried to clarify to BoxAnne.
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
by Waldo Rastel on Dec 14, 2011 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
Instant replay?
Really? To determine if a knockdown is a knockdown? Or to check for low blows? How else could it be used?
that kind of thing, yes. Where it’s hard to determine, for instance, it a trip or a punch caused the guy to go down. For instance in Peterson/Khan, that knockdown—maybe it was, maybe it was a trip. Didn’t watch the slo-mo carefully enough myself to say. Sometimes good refs blow calls due to the angle they saw the action from, like that. From the Bleacher Report, June 30, 2011—
The Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) has reportedly approved the use of instant video replay technology as an effective tool in the determination of lapses in boxing officiating.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Thanks, BoxAnne
I would imagine it could POSSIBLY work when it comes to something that results in a points deduction. Something that could be checked quickly between rounds. Seeing if a cut was caused by punch or headbutt could be another possibly good use.
But I was also imagining judges using it to re-look at critical exchanges to see if punches really landed. I would really NOT want it to be used in that way.
I think open scoring should be explored
In traditional sports like football, basketball etc. you know what the score is and what you need to do till the game ends. In recent fights, wouldn’t JMM have benefited from knowing that he needed to win the final round or even Khan knowing that he needed a knockdown to win? There are many instances where knowing the scores could help.
Can this system be abused? Of course. But it’s not like that isn’t happening in the current system.
Announcing scores causes judges to be scrutinized. If someone knows he’s down on the cards, he can change his game plan accordingly.
Open scoring definitely deserves some thought.
"Open" Scoring
So from the WBC website here is the official stance with regard to open scoring.
It was also agreed that the WBC will report to the fighters’ corners the score in the fourth and eighth round like it has been made in the WBC bouts through the local sound.
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
by Waldo Rastel on Dec 15, 2011 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Not sure what “local sound” means, but if corners know whats up they can advise the fighter accordingly and can take necessary action. Thing is, if they’re going to be screwed it will happen regardless. At least this way they know what to change.
Local sound would mean that the scores are announced through the sound system at the venue, therefore the crowd and everyone at home would know the scores.
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
by Waldo Rastel on Dec 15, 2011 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
I like instant replay too
Too many times the judges or even the referee doesn’t see something happening. Why not give a chance to reevaluate what someone may have missed? MMA is exploring this and boxing could benefit from it too.
That critical moment of suspense
I like how fighting is unique among sports in that you REALLY don’t know who won until that announcement is made. Okay, sometimes you know, but sometimes you only think you know. A lot of the fun will be lost if that all-important moment of suspense is no longer there.
If they’re only doing it every four rounds … ok, maybe. But I don’t like the totally open Olympic-style scoring at all.
Interesting perspective. But in the case of a fight like Williams vs Lara, we all “knew” that Lara won the fight, yet the decision said the opposite. Wouldn’t knowing how the fight was playing out and inviting scrutiny upon the judges call for some accountability as to how they came to that conclusion?
I think that aspect makes open scoring worth exploring rather than be rudely surprised later.
the thing is, what’s inviting scrutiny in the middle of the fight going to accomplish. The judges were suspended later in Lara/Williams, following intensive scrutiny, and rightly so. But to intervene with the judges no matter how effed up they are during the fight invites all kinds of mess.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
open scoring
i think a criticism of open scoring is that once a fighter knows he is up enough on the scorecards that only a knockout will defeat him, he hops on his bicycle which makes for less entertaining final rounds.
agree with you cyke that in some instances it could make the championship rounds more entertaining, but it could also make them less entertaining on the flip side.
maybe others who have witnessed open scoring (i think it’s done sometimes in europe?) can speak on this…
That’s conceivable, but it could also cause the losing fighter to go for broke and try to score the KO. It could go either way, but i’m interested in seeing how it would turn out.
i really hated it when I watched a match that had it on Mexican TV a year or so ago. I though it would be a big improvement, and it so, so wasn’t. Just deadened the whole bout.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
yeah, imagine if everyone in the building knew that froch needed the ko against taylor, or that peterson needed two points to win in the 12th against khan. would have upped the dramatic finish for sure.
without knowing too much about it, i’m leaning against it, though i would like to see an example of scores being announced after the 4th and 8th only.
cause while it would probably cause the losing fighter to go for broke, it stands to reason that the winning fighter would hop on is bike or turtle up. and as examples like pacquiao-clottey, pacquiao-mosley and donaire-narvaez have shown us, that does not make for exciting rounds….
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
