Robbery by Scorecards-Corruption or Human Error?
By UK Boxing Writer Jon Campbell
Boxing as a sport has historically carried a reputation of a sport not too far from corruption, powerful people (not excluding the mafia) buying judges in order for the fighter they endorse to be ensured victory. Even in contemporary times where the sport has developed and become much more modern and innovative in its multiple layers of coverage, safety and investment, something which is not a common praise of boxing is transparency and accountability.
Recently, a few events have triggered a larger discussion of such goings on than previously was the case. Now, it is certain that there are anomalous decisions made on the scorecards which simply do not reflect the events which occurred between the ropes, and there is no other possible explanation other than unfair outside interferences. However, it must be made clear that the term ‘robbed’ is one which is tossed around too excessively. I will make this distinguishment in clearer terms.
Firstly, genuinely corrupt decisions, those in which the decisions are so detached from boxing in the ring, there is no other option than to conclude outside influences are wrongly involved, have seemingly become commonplace in boxing. Although, they are a rarity, they are brought to one’s attention much more often than they should at the elite level. A prime example which comes to mind, albeit not professional, is Roy Jones Jr’s nightmare in Seoul, Korea at the the 1988 Olympic finals. It was completely clear to all viewers that RJ out boxed his opponent, but due to the corruption based on the fact his opponent was representing Korea, Jones unfortunately missed out on the highly coveted gold medal. This is an instance where one can unmistakably accuse the officials of being wrongly led by whatever means to give the a biased decision.
It is common amongst corrupt decisions that it be some form of home advantage, be it town/state/nation. For example, the first fight between Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis. Asmuch as I love Holyfield, as a fighter, it is clear he lost that fight. More recently, we have Dereck Chisora, who objectively defeated European champ Robert Hellenius, clearly outworking him but yet again failing to be awarded the decision were it mattered most.
It would be quite unreasonable and frankly misinformed to suggest that such incidents do not occur in the world of boxing. However, in making this clear it must be pointed out that the term ‘robbed’ in boxing is a term used too excessively and often in a hyperbolic manner. In these cases corruption is certainly possible, but for the most part it is simply a reasonably close fight and it is possible for it to be interpreted going the other way.
This often happens at the very elite of the sport and the most clear example has been the Pacquiao-Marquez trilogy. Now, although many people feel that Marquez won the last fight (for example), they are so close that by no means could be necessarily deemed corruption. Why? Simply because the result does not match that of the person in question. This is merely a case of people believing one thing and not accepting other’s opinions, and reacting with language which does not reflect the actual fight. The fact of the matter is, styles make fights, and this motto can be used also to describe judge’s decision making, some judges prefer aggression whilst some prefer skills and finesse.
When Oscar De La Hoya met Felix Trinidad in their highly anticipated bout, the decision of a Trinidad victory has long been questioned. Although many may argue that De La Hoya was seen to win many of the early rounds, he clearly took his foot off the pedals later on in the fight. He, unnecessarily, gave up such later rounds,and it took the decision out of De La Hoya’s hands. Some of the rounds, which are closer earlier on, may have been interpreted to go Trinidad’s way in the later rounds. Jerry Roth, to this day, stands by his judgment.
Decisions like the two mentioned above have been labeled robberies, but what such people fail to understand is that not only are we human and thus not perfect, people simply may have differing opinions to them which can also be valid. In many a case, does a losing fighter claim that they won a fight and deserved the decision? This is bound to be agreed upon by some people, this does not mean that any form of malpractice has occurred, by no means.
To conclude, whilst it is clear boxing is a sport in which unofficial influences are more common than one would wish. The distinguishment made above must be understood by all who want a good grasp of the sport, as we do not have robots which can create a perfect scorecard, it is simply another human’s opinion which for the most part must be respected. Unless, of course, it is clearly questionable, in which case it may be fair to suggest something beyond the rules of equity has occurred.
We must, however, remove ourselves from the habit of simply firing blame whenever we see a decision we may not agree with. It is harmful and projects a bad image of the sport we all love. Not only this, but if we use the term ‘robbed’ for all instances because we disagree with a decision, it puts those decisions in the same category as those blatant robberies when cheating is present. In this case we must not be afraid to use the term but only when it is certainly the case of cheating.
Follow Boxing Writer Jon Campbell on TWITTER @REALCOMBATMEDIA
Join our FACEBOOK for the latest up to date fight news Real Combat Media.COM
Add us to your circle on GOOGLE PLUS: plus.google.com/Real Combat Media.
JOIN OUR NEW INTEGRATED FACEBOOK FORUMS :realcombatmedia.com/forum
COMMENTS
English