Why has boxing not evolved with the times?

Why has boxing opted to stay in the early 1900's and not make use of new technology like every other mainstream sport? We have all this new crazy technology, camera angles, video analysis, and we still rely on one guy (ref), under extreme pressure, to make snap decisions and etch them in stone.

We have computer generated statistics that tell us how many punches each fighter landed in a particular round. Again, we have 100 different camera angles and picture clear video quality. Yet we still rely on 3 judges at ringside to tell us who won, when they really can't see the action unless the two fighters are positioned near them at that particular time.

Me and a friend had this argument the other day. He likes things the way they are because it adds excitement and drama to the sport. But only at the cost of an athlete's livelihood. Soto will go home with a LOSS despite beating the holy hell out of his opponent, proving without a doubt he was the better man, because one guy made a split second decision that he hit his opponent over the head while he was down, while everyone in the world knows the punch barely touched him.

Anyone else getting fed up with this kind of stuff?

Wont work.

I do however think referees and judges need to be more accountable for there actions and when fit need to explain what they did and why.

Anyone remember the HBO Lewis v Holyfield post fight interviews with the judges and fighters?

As for video technology its open to abuse in boxing, fighters could claim a foul then wait 2-3mins for the referee to review the tape in the mean time recover.

I also dont think compubox can score a fight there is no human element Compubox doesnt desern a jab from a crunching right hook that staggers a guy. Its a guide we like to use post fight but its not practical to use as a scoring system.

Yeah I agree completely. I'd like to see a major overhaul. Referee's really should have the option of action replays.

Not sure about the judging, boxing is very subjective and punch count stats don't tell the whole story either.

I do dispair how many poor decisions are made though by the people supposedly best qualified to make the decision.

I wonder if instead of sitting ringside judges were to watch the action on a big screen so they don't miss anything, and have a computer each that allows them to keep track of punch stats, watch replays between rounds etc.?

An idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Wont work.

I do however think referees and judges need to be more accountable for there actions and when fit need to explain what they did and why.

Anyone remember the HBO Lewis v Holyfield post fight interviews with the judges and fighters?

As for video technology its open to abuse in boxing, fighters could claim a foul then wait 2-3mins for the referee to review the tape in the mean time recover.

I also dont think compubox can score a fight there is no human element Compubox doesnt desern a jab from a crunching right hook that staggers a guy. Its a guide we like to use post fight but its not practical to use as a scoring system.

---

Fighters claim fouls and get 2 or 3 minutes to recover now though. At least this way if they claimed a foul and video evidence proved otherwise it could be counted as a knockdown and they lost the round 10/8.

One way to stop the cheating bastards :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Wont work.

I do however think referees and judges need to be more accountable for there actions and when fit need to explain what they did and why.

Anyone remember the HBO Lewis v Holyfield post fight interviews with the judges and fighters?

As for video technology its open to abuse in boxing, fighters could claim a foul then wait 2-3mins for the referee to review the tape in the mean time recover.

I also dont think compubox can score a fight there is no human element Compubox doesnt desern a jab from a crunching right hook that staggers a guy. Its a guide we like to use post fight but its not practical to use as a scoring system.

---

Fighters claim fouls and get 2 or 3 minutes to recover now though. At least this way if they claimed a foul and video evidence proved otherwise it could be counted as a knockdown and they lost the round 10/8.

One way to stop the cheating bastards :)

---

You can tell if a ball is in or out on a tennis court but you cant tell if a person is in pain or hurt for that reason i cant see it happening. And the cases for this are very very rare this is the first bs DQ i can remember.

Im far more worried about biast referees and judges ruining the sport.

Baseball doesn't use replays. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lance Uppercut

Baseball doesn't use replays. Right?

---

Neither does football.

You wanna stop 2 guys in the middle of a fight from beating the holy hell out of eachother so you can see an action replay to determine whether a call was right or wrong :confused::confused:

some sports just werent meant for technology and boxing is one of those!!

lets get back to 15rounds and less padding on the gloves i say...that`ll sort the men from the boys ;D;D;D

I think replays can "possibly" be used like in a low blow situation.

Say a fighter claims to be hit and folds down, the ref. calls time and is immidiately shown a replay with a portable screen for him to see. Within let's say 3 replays (about 30 seconds or so) he should be able to signal a call. If in fact it is a low blow then time continues from the moment he called time and the fighter may rest.
But if the ref. finds the blow to be OK and NOT below the belt maybe the fighter can get a warning or something. Incase someone tries to use it to their advantage after 3 times that a fighter has claimed to be hit low and the ref. determines that he lied he can be deducted one point in the FINAL scoring.

(I dunno what I typed, I just went with it as the thoughts crossed my mind :p )


All in all some sports were not ment to have replays...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikkel_K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lance Uppercut

Baseball doesn't use replays. Right?

---

Neither does football.

---

American Football does use replays.
Football/Soccer doesn't.

I think boxing hasn't changed because they got it right. The judges are bullshit, but I mean think of how wide we score fights on here......alot of it can not be helped unless we go to a compubox type scoring, and WE DO NOT want that.

So Cortez has been shitty lately. All in all boxing has never been better.

A replay even in limited circumstances would have stopped the robbery in the Soto fight at the weekend.

Stuff like this would delay the action, be abused and take too much excitement away from boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

A replay even in limited circumstances would have stopped the robbery in the Soto fight at the weekend.

---

Yeah but if the recipient of the illegal hit knows its filmed and anylised he could play act and get the other guy disqualified anyway.

Why does everyone want things to change? I dont understand. Maybe I am throwback. But I am happy that we have one of the least regulated sports in the world.

With as big of an Impact and life altering effect on a fighters life One lone Referee's call can & Does have....I think there can be a place for Instant replay.There are a zillion places for Announce teams at Ringside,How about one lone Monitor and Official who's sole job is to review calls and certain instances within a certain amount of time.Maybe a sort of Truth-Spell-check for the referee ,(thought that was commission's job Lol).How many times has a referee probably felt like saying....:dontknow: "I have no F!!!ng Idea what just happened...I Missed It" but being in the instant they make some crap call of finality.How about a red-flag system as in Football made by opposing corner......talk about killing the momentum of the fight.

It might also be a deterrent for some guys to "Massage" The rules with false claims with penalty of point deductions.Some refs might become too reliant and use the replay system as a crutch.I'm alll over the place here....But The controversy without replay sure keeps things Interesting & going !?:-X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Why has boxing opted to stay in the early 1900's and not make use of new technology like every other mainstream sport? We have all this new crazy technology, camera angles, video analysis, and we still rely on one guy (ref), under extreme pressure, to make snap decisions and etch them in stone.

We have computer generated statistics that tell us how many punches each fighter landed in a particular round. Again, we have 100 different camera angles and picture clear video quality. Yet we still rely on 3 judges at ringside to tell us who won, when they really can't see the action unless the two fighters are positioned near them at that particular time.

Me and a friend had this argument the other day. He likes things the way they are because it adds excitement and drama to the sport. But only at the cost of an athlete's livelihood. Soto will go home with a LOSS despite beating the holy hell out of his opponent, proving without a doubt he was the better man, because one guy made a split second decision that he hit his opponent over the head while he was down, while everyone in the world knows the punch barely touched him.

Anyone else getting fed up with this kind of stuff?

---

I think the 3 judges are necessary. One person on compubox could outland the other, but if the other fighter is doing way more damage with less punches, stats won't exactly prove the winner there. If we let technology decide winners, it would be heavily criticized. Imagine technology scoring a figure skaters set? It wouldn't exactly work. I understand the whole Soto decision could've used a replay. (Pretty sure Cortez would've let his decision stand EVEN WITH VIDEO REPLAY because I bet his pride would get the best of him).

I don't think boxing has any major flaws in its system. It's worked throughout time and if it aint broke, don't fix it. Some things are just part of the game such as robberies and Joe Cort...I mean bad refs..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

Stuff like this would delay the action, be abused and take too much excitement away from boxing.

---

Absolutely! Imagine if someone was knocked down on a body shot and Joe Cortez (or any other bad ref in the game) decided to watch the replay because he may have thought the knockdown was caused by a low blow, the other fighter gets that time to recover.

Sorry, I'm just looking for openings to show my disgust for Cortez' performance in the Soto fight.

It has evolved. For one we have the 10 point must scoring system which actually made knockdowns count for something. I've seen on boxrec before fighters who have been down 5 times throughout a bout in the old days but still won the majority of rounds and the decision.

That's been one key, obviously all the rule changes most notably the changing of how many rounds which I think ultimately is a good thing. There is replay in New Jersey like they mentioned on the broadcast but I haven't seen it used yet.

I hope they can show replays better then ESPN does though because it seems I am always waiting for hours to get a replay there. Literally I don't know if it's intentional but it takes forever there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins

How about a red-flag system as in Football made by opposing corner......talk about killing the momentum of the fight.

---

Could you imagine if they had anything like this when Lou Duva was in his prime giving referees hell? Oh man.

But there's no reason that they couldn't have the timekeeper or someone be a replay official if they had to. There are a lot of people at any show of decent size who are on the commission payroll, it shouldn't be to much to ask if deemed necessary to have one stationed by a monitor just in case they needed a replay. There's no reason a referee should have to make a call on what a cut was caused by. Half the time they don't notice the cut until well after it was caused. Things like that need replay. They should also review point deductions, not give point deductions after the fact, but review them to make sure they were appropriate.

One thing though, how would replay have helped the Soto fight? The blow that Cortez saw happened. It was light but it happened. Lorenzo said he couldn't go on because of that blow...what does replay do there? Is the replay official going to tell Lorenzo that that punch didn't affect him at all? That doesn't seem right as much as I disagree with the call. It's a tough spot, but should have never come to be as Cortez should have just waved it off and ignored the punch given what was happening for the 4 rounds prior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

I think replays can "possibly" be used like in a low blow situation.

Say a fighter claims to be hit and folds down, the ref. calls time and is immidiately shown a replay with a portable screen for him to see. Within let's say 3 replays (about 30 seconds or so) he should be able to signal a call. If in fact it is a low blow then time continues from the moment he called time and the fighter may rest.
But if the ref. finds the blow to be OK and NOT below the belt maybe the fighter can get a warning or something. Incase someone tries to use it to their advantage after 3 times that a fighter has claimed to be hit low and the ref. determines that he lied he can be deducted one point in the FINAL scoring.

(I dunno what I typed, I just went with it as the thoughts crossed my mind :p )


All in all some sports were not ment to have replays...

---

Thats not a bad idea actually. For example I would have given a point deduction for cheating when he pretended to be hit low against Calzaghe. Similar to when footballers get a yellow card for diving.
The fighter usually stays down for at least a minute when hit low, so thats plenty of time to determine whether it was really a low blow or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikkel_K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lance Uppercut

Baseball doesn't use replays. Right?

---

Neither does football.

---

American Football does use replays.
Football/Soccer doesn't.

---

Yeah. As I said football doesnt use replays.
:)