why did adamek beat cunningham
shit judges, judges know more about boxing, corruption and/or money
Printable View
why did adamek beat cunningham
shit judges, judges know more about boxing, corruption and/or money
ive voted corruption/money because i cant think of any other explanation that fits
Probably all the above, however I don't believe the result was as outrageous as everyone seems to believe it was....Should Cunningham have won? He probably edged it but this wasn't a massive robbery in my eyes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofo2
yep i agree in general it could be any or all of the above
i am more refering to the fights that can be considered to be elite btw
i should have added another item on the poll something like fans getting over excited
pac marquez 3 was controvertial, before i saw it I was expecting a terrible decision from the reaction and when i watched it (after the event) i thought pac deserved it
i havent seen the adamek cunningham fight so i cant comment, nor have i seen pac bradley?
off the top of my head the worst decision i have seen in a while was helenius chisora, being very kind helenius won 3 rounds
i find it very hard to make any kind of case for him
he was lazy, being out punched, wasnt the agressor, why did he win the fight?
Chisora v Helenius was clearly a fucked up result, but out of the three fights mentioned it is probably the only one that sticks outright as a poor poor result, there could be argument that Bradley and Adamek did enough to win for me, so I guess most of it is down to interpretation!
Bad decisions are relative to the person who believes they are a bad decision. Bad decisions infer that it was a wrong decision and a lot of the times it is in reality just a close decision that went against their fighter.
bad decisions often have a mis-interpretation of a significant number of rounds being scored for a particular fighter. The best example is ODH v Trinidad most people had Oscar winning the middle rounds and Tito the latter rounds but the decisive factor would be who won the early rounds and that is where the arguments start. Those that scored it to Oscar will see a bad decision but those that score it to mostly Tito will see it as a closer decision.
The same could be used for Cooper v Bugner.
Everyone will have their own real bad decisions mines Holyfield v Lewis 1.
You are talking bad decisions and you think Pacman won the 3rd fight with Marquez.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44Quote:
Originally Posted by mofo2
yep i agree in general it could be any or all of the above
i am more refering to the fights that can be considered to be elite btw
i should have added another item on the poll something like fans getting over excited
pac marquez 3 was controvertial, before i saw it I was expecting a terrible decision from the reaction and when i watched it (after the event) i thought pac deserved it
i havent seen the adamek cunningham fight so i cant comment, nor have i seen pac bradley?
off the top of my head the worst decision i have seen in a while was helenius chisora, being very kind helenius won 3 rounds
i find it very hard to make any kind of case for him
he was lazy, being out punched, wasnt the agressor, why did he win the fight?
Hope you are never a judge mate.
The majority are down to corrupt hometown judging or just keeping the house fighter in the win column because it makes good future business sense. A great example of this was Felix Sturm vs. Oscar. Everyone knew De La Hoya vs. Hopkins was next and it was supposed to be that Oscar collected the 4th belt so they could fight for all 4 middleweight belts. If Sturm had been given that decision it would have ruined one of the highest grossing fights in boxing history, and in kind would have cost the city of Las Vegas alot of money. For the life of me I can't quite understand why Sturm bitched about the decision as he must have saw that coming. To be fair, he has more than made up for it with the amount of dodgy decisions he's received in Germany.
Exactly. Like the judges we are human and not infallible. But we are not paid to be impartial. I posted the Cunningham/Adamek card because of the diversity in the rounds. I cannot recall three cards scored in such a manner in a close fight. Its as if no self interest was applied. None of the three judges agreed with each other in almost any round. Is that true objectivity or stupidity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
On the other hand...Whitaker vs Ramirez 1 was unadulterated no doubt paid for stupidity. Same goes for Tiberi vs Toney.
I miss 15 rds for championship fights. At least they closed the gap.
Remember when the "championship rounds" were the 13th-15th?Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitExactly. Like the judges we are human and not infallible. But we are not paid to be impartial. I posted the Cunningham/Adamek card because of the diversity in the rounds. I cannot recall three cards scored in such a manner in a close fight. Its as if no self interest was applied. None of the three judges agreed with each other in almost any round. Is that true objectivity or stupidity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
On the other hand...Whitaker vs Ramirez 1 was unadulterated no doubt paid for stupidity. Same goes for Tiberi vs Toney.
I miss 15 rds for championship fights. At least they closed the gap.
I like the "lone wolf" breakdown, it will identify a problem judge over time but so will score cards.
I had Adamek winning 115-113 and so did a lot of other people. It was a close fight and not a robbery. If Cunningham wanted to win so badly, he should have thrown more power punches in the later rounds instead of running.
There are bad decisions everywhere, but I've seen far more robberies and shady refereeing in the USA favoring American boxers than anywhere else in the world.
Yet American boxers, media people and fans whine and cry more about losing a close fight than fans in the UK, Phillipines, Russia, Germany and elsewhere do when it happens to their fighters.
Pacquiao was robbed against Bradley, Ponce de Leon was robbed against Broner, Castillo beat Mayweather in their first fight, Lewis clearly beat Holyfield in their first fight, Meehan should have won against Brewster, Kotelnik was robbed against Alexander, Ward had a home referee who let him deliberately headbutt and otherwise foul against Kessler, Berto cut Zaveck with a deliberate headbutt and then won a TKO, etc.
America leads the world in shady officiating.
I think the biggest reason, even moreso than greed and corruption, is the fact that boxing has not moved with technology like other mainstream sports, and our fights are still judged the same way they were 150 years ago.
As viewers at home, we get the best angle/view of the action at ALL times, we get instant replays, with modern cable boxes we can rewind and review parts of the fight, we can play in slow motion, ect ect.
But the fight is decided by three fucking people who have ONE view of the fight. The chick who fucked up the Lewis/Holyfield decision said it best: she thought Holyfield was landing more punches because Lewis had his back to her for a large part of Holyfield's flurries and she didn't have a good view of it! So they have to contend with bad views because of the moving action, ref and camera guys getting in the way, ect.
So the goddamn fight is judged by three people who have a WORSE view of the fight than us fans sitting at home! How does that make sense?
We have the technology now where we could have judges in the back room with multi-camera angles, going back and dissecting each round, slowing footage down to see what punches landed and what didn't, ect ect. In mainstream sports, they've used the growth in media technology to make the games fair. You can review a play in the NFL or NHL from 40 different angles and get it right. In boxing, we haven't even thought of using that shit apart from giving us boxing fans a better home viewing presentation.
So yeah, corruption is a big part of boxing, but the entire judging system is faulty and arciach.
Could not agree more. I have been advocating for years that the system is broken and that it has not evolved with the times. Year after year concurrently we see bad decision after bad decision and the only answer they have come with is open scoring which only adds to the farce. Personally I'd like to see the judges removed from ringside and given all the angles we get at home but with the volume off and taken away from all the distractions. Imagine looking across the apron while watching and scoring a fight for a millisecond and getting a full view of Pamela Andersons camel toe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
There should NEVER be home advantage.
There should NEVER be judges from any of the fighters hometowns
Fighters risk there life, it should be set with these rules so they don't risk it for nothing.
There has to be home advantage. Fights in neutral venues will not make a fighter anywhere near the kind of money they could otherwise. Think about it, you're Scottish (I'm assuming). If you support either Celtic or Rnagers, would you go and watch them play St. Johnstone in Dublin? Hometown fighting helps generate a fanbase, and thus helps a fighter gain more money per fight. To combat this, I would allow the away fighter some adantages, like a couple of judges from his town or a referee more favourable to his type of fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendettos
Scottish yes, and Rangers :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnThere has to be home advantage. Fights in neutral venues will not make a fighter anywhere near the kind of money they could otherwise. Think about it, you're Scottish (I'm assuming). If you support either Celtic or Rnagers, would you go and watch them play St. Johnstone in Dublin? Hometown fighting helps generate a fanbase, and thus helps a fighter gain more money per fight. To combat this, I would allow the away fighter some adantages, like a couple of judges from his town or a referee more favourable to his type of fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendettos
Dook Koo Kim to name a few, travelling across the world and risking life. You think if that fight lasted to the end of the 15 he'd have gotten the decision if it was even slightly close? Every judge was 4 or plus points in favor of Mancini. In a fight that I've seen and struggle to score.
Watch and score this fight 10 time and you'll have 10 different scores at the end. Mancini was winning that fight regardless.
Things need to be fair!