Scoring Fights From Your Living Room Is Unreliable

[marbleheadmaui]

Or maybe I should say different from the way the sport governs the judging of fights. One might ask here, WTF is he talking about?

Seeing a fight on TV is VERY different from seeing it at ringside. VERY different. Here are some of the reasons why (in no order).

1. Positioning-On TV generally one sees the action from above and from a variety of angles in a given round. Judges see the action from below and from a constant angle.

2. 2-D vs 3-D-Television really can deaden the action of a sport like boxing. Sitting right at the ring crisp punches look far more damaging than they do on TV and slick movements that just evade punches can be seen far more clearly. TV dulls the action just a little bit.

3. The Impact of the Crowd and Broadcast-There can be no question the choices the broadcasting team makes poisons the objectivity of the viewer. What do I mean? Well commentary for one thing may draw one's attention to something one wouldn't otherwise have noticed (a bad thing) and Harold Lederman scoring also doesn't help. It's the equivalent of one of the problems with "open scoring." Also things like slow motion and instant replay are poisonous (from a judging perspective) because some technician in a truck is telling you "this is important."

4. Distractions-How often is your mind or your vision off the TV for even a few seconds a round, either because the trip to the fridge or the john took a little long, or you got a call, or you are chatting with friends while watching the fight?

5. Non-visual Keys-When at ringside one often gains vital clues about what is going on in the ring by sound. The thud of a punch landing to the body, the silence as what seems to land doesn't, the gasp of a fighter taking a shot etc. One usually can't get access to these clues on TV.

Now all of this doesn't necessarily mean that judging at ringside is right and we're wrong judging from our living rooms. Hell, one could plausibly argue fights should be scored from above on TV by judges in cubicles isolated from the crowd. But throughout boxing history it has been presumed true that the people closest to the action were more likely to get it right than people in row three or row 33 etc. The point is the perspectives are very DIFFERENT in all the ways I have noted above. THAT is why when we see decisions we disagree with, especially close ones? The best response is perhaps to be a little humble and think maybe we didn't get the best perspective on that one.

[porkypara]

Or maybe I should say different from the way the sport governs the judging of fights. One might ask here, WTF is he talking about?

Seeing a fight on TV is VERY different from seeing it at ringside. VERY different. Here are some of the reasons why (in no order).

1. Positioning-On TV generally one sees the action from above and from a variety of angles in a given round. Judges see the action from below and from a constant angle.

2. 2-D vs 3-D-Television really can deaden the action of a sport like boxing. Sitting right at the ring crisp punches look far more damaging than they do on TV and slick movements that just evade punches can be seen far more clearly. TV dulls the action just a little bit.

3. The Impact of the Crowd and Broadcast-There can be no question the choices the broadcasting team makes poisons the objectivity of the viewer. What do I mean? Well commentary for one thing may draw one's attention to something one wouldn't otherwise have noticed (a bad thing) and Harold Lederman scoring also doesn't help. It's the equivalent of one of the problems with "open scoring." Also things like slow motion and instant replay are poisonous (from a judging perspective) because some technician in a truck is telling you "this is important."

4. Distractions-How often is your mind or your vision off the TV for even a few seconds a round, either because the trip to the fridge or the john took a little long, or you got a call, or you are chatting with friends while watching the fight?

5. Non-visual Keys-When at ringside one often gains vital clues about what is going on in the ring by sound. The thud of a punch landing to the body, the silence as what seems to land doesn't, the gasp of a fighter taking a shot etc. One usually can't get access to these clues on TV.

Now all of this doesn't necessarily mean that judging at ringside is right and we're wrong judging from our living rooms. Hell, one could plausibly argue fights should be scored from above on TV by judges in cubicles isolated from the crowd. But throughout boxing history it has been presumed true that the people closest to the action were more likely to get it right than people in row three or row 33 etc. The point is the perspectives are very DIFFERENT in all the ways I have noted above. THAT is why when we see decisions we disagree with, especially close ones? The best response is perhaps to be a little humble and think maybe we didn't get the best perspective on that one.

Very good points which people should think about before they cry robbery!!!!!!!!!!!

[AdamGB]

I agree, but I think it can cut both ways.

[TitoFan]

Excellent points. And I enjoy the atmosphere of watching a fight in person much more than watching it on TV. However....

1. Being there live doesn't always give you the best angle. Sometimes the fight moves away from you, and happens on the other side of the ring. Also, the ref can obscure your view, and there are no different camera angles to shake off the ref.

2. There are always several cameras available to record the action from the best possible angle. Plus closeups can afford a view you just can't get from several rows back.

3. Replays and slow-motion.... the ULTIMATE tools to judge fights.

Muting your TV can help eliminate the broadcasters' bias or misguided comments, 'cause admittedly many times they do more harm than good.

[J_Undisputed]

Yes and no. There's a few things that aren't mentioned. Many of us know who we want to win the fight, so the the expected outcome isn't the one that happens, we tend to feel slighted. At the same time. there is a reason there are 3 judges. All of them are sitting equally close to the ring, but there's a 3 round disparity one way or the other. Sometimes those judges are looking to leave the arena alive and base their decisions on what they believe is best for the sport and not who won the fight... and other times believe it are directly or indirectly getting their pockets lined by promoters. They know scoring a fight in favor of a promoters fight who will fight big fights for big money, is better than being blacklisted and being thrown out in favor of some no name judge you never heard of, while he collects your money.

Many people watch the fight with the sound off. I myself don't even pay attention to the commentators or crowd thinks. I take all that into account when watching the fight. (i.e. any Canelo fight in Mexico will have fans that lose their minds when he lands anything.) and network voices are going to push network fighters.

A lot of the same fighters are robbed way too often to write it off as miss gasps, missed angles or punches I didn't hear. Sometimes we can miss things but much of these robberies is the unfortunate byproduct of nationalistic bull$h*t that arises when you can't market a foreign fighter to an American audience. How many times did Martinez have to get jobbed before he took out everyone in his path and get recognized as the man to beat in the division. I think you have a point and being near the action, but lets not overlook what goes on beyond the ring. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[marbleheadmaui]

Excellent points. And I enjoy the atmosphere of watching a fight in person much more than watching it on TV. However....

1. Being there live doesn't always give you the best angle. Sometimes the fight moves away from you, and happens on the other side of the ring. Also, the ref can obscure your view, and there are no different camera angles to shake off the ref.

2. There are always several cameras available to record the action from the best possible angle. Plus closeups can afford a view you just can't get from several rows back.

3. Replays and slow-motion.... the ULTIMATE tools to judge fights.

Muting your TV can help eliminate the broadcasters' bias or misguided comments, 'cause admittedly many times they do more harm than good.

Thanks for your thoughts but I REALLY disagree with a couple.

1. All this does is reinforce my point about why the perspective is so different.
2. This is TERRIBLY poisonous because SOMEONE ELSE IS DECIDING WHAT THE "BEST VIEW" IS! Why in some cases would we see one angle and why in some cases another? It is inconsistent, arbitrary and most importantly, someone else imposing their view on your judgement.

3. The most terribly poisonous of all. Someone else deciding what's important and now emphasizing it. Unless you watch the ENTIRE fight this way? It is terribly warping of one's perspective.

[marbleheadmaui]

Yes and no. There's a few things that aren't mentioned. Many of us know who we want to win the fight, so the the expected outcome isn't the one that happens, we tend to feel slighted. At the same time. there is a reason there are 3 judges. All of them are sitting equally close to the ring, but there's a 3 round disparity one way or the other. Sometimes those judges are looking to leave the arena alive and base their decisions on what they believe is best for the sport and not who won the fight... and other times believe it are directly or indirectly getting their pockets lined by promoters. They know scoring a fight in favor of a promoters fight who will fight big fights for big money, is better than being blacklisted and being thrown out in favor of some no name judge you never heard of, while he collects your money.

Many people watch the fight with the sound off. I myself don't even pay attention to the commentators or crowd thinks. I take all that into account when watching the fight. (i.e. any Canelo fight in Mexico will have fans that lose their minds when he lands anything.) and network voices are going to push network fighters.

A lot of the same fighters are robbed way too often to write it off as miss gasps, missed angles or punches I didn't hear. Sometimes we can miss things but much of these robberies is the unfortunate byproduct of nationalistic bull$h*t that arises when you can't market a foreign fighter to an American audience. How many times did Martinez have to get jobbed before he took out everyone in his path and get recognized as the man to beat in the division. I think you have a point and being near the action, but lets not overlook what goes on beyond the ring. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Very nice post. The old time boxing phrase about fighting in the other guy's hometown was "We needed a knockout to get a draw."

[Spicoli]

It is exceptionally rare to see a fight from your living room you consider a bad decision that media members and fans who are actually there in attendance do not voice the same sentiment in some degree. The difference between a robbery and a close debatable fight should be kept in perspective as to not water down the outrage. Generalities can be a biatch and a sort of boy cries wolf mindset sets in if objectivity is lost, no matter whom you root for. I think all in all though longtime fans can see thru the heaps of bs and smoke in mirrors that gives the sport a bad name as long as group think and honest distinction is not lost.

I stick with the irony of an old saying about obscenity in regards to bad judges and shite calls.....You know it when you see it!

[El Kabong]

Eh....I feel comfortable scoring fights from a bar or my living room.

[Andre]

And what of the ringside situation where the action is in an area that one judge is behind the back of a fighter and cant see or behind the ref and they cant see who or whats landing?

[marbleheadmaui]

And what of the ringside situation where the action is in an area that one judge is behind the back of a fighter and cant see or behind the ref and they cant see who or whats landing?

Two thoughts. One is that is why there are three judges from different sides of the ring and second, that is why sound also sometimes matters.

I am NOT arguing rings judging is perfect. I am arguing it is a sufficiently different experience that we should not be surprised when it leads to different scoring. I would also say ringside judging is what we've always had and I see no other superior option that we should change it to.

[marbleheadmaui]

Eh....I feel comfortable scoring fights from a bar or my living room.

Be comfortable all you want. Just dont kid yourself that it is the same experience as being ringside.

[armin]

And what of the ringside situation where the action is in an area that one judge is behind the back of a fighter and cant see or behind the ref and they cant see who or whats landing?

Two thoughts. One is that is why there are three judges from different sides of the ring and second, that is why sound also sometimes matters.

I am NOT arguing rings judging is perfect. I am arguing it is a sufficiently different experience that we should not be surprised when it leads to different scoring. I would also say ringside judging is what we've always had and I see no other superior option that we should change it to.

It is faaaar from perfect, and just because we always had it doesn't mean we shouldn't amend it. I say keep two ringside, and stick one in a room by himself with a tv without sound. Make replay available to ref and judge so they don't fuck up imporant calls like knockdowns ruled as slips, vice versa, and cuts being caused by headbuts as opposed to punches. Also we can know when judges are biased or maybe even in the pockets of promoters when they're scoring is different from everyone else it seems including press row, since usually they have a similar angle on the fight. Like how the hell did one judge have williams up 119-109 in the first martinez fight, dudes blind, I don't care if you watched that fight from space thru a telescope no way did martinez just win one round of that fight. Well rant over...lol

[TitoFan]

Excellent points. And I enjoy the atmosphere of watching a fight in person much more than watching it on TV. However....

1. Being there live doesn't always give you the best angle. Sometimes the fight moves away from you, and happens on the other side of the ring. Also, the ref can obscure your view, and there are no different camera angles to shake off the ref.

2. There are always several cameras available to record the action from the best possible angle. Plus closeups can afford a view you just can't get from several rows back.

3. Replays and slow-motion.... the ULTIMATE tools to judge fights.

Muting your TV can help eliminate the broadcasters' bias or misguided comments, 'cause admittedly many times they do more harm than good.

Thanks for your thoughts but I REALLY disagree with a couple.

1. All this does is reinforce my point about why the perspective is so different.
2. This is TERRIBLY poisonous because SOMEONE ELSE IS DECIDING WHAT THE "BEST VIEW" IS! Why in some cases would we see one angle and why in some cases another? It is inconsistent, arbitrary and most importantly, someone else imposing their view on your judgement.

3. The most terribly poisonous of all. Someone else deciding what's important and now emphasizing it. Unless you watch the ENTIRE fight this way? It is terribly warping of one's perspective.

Like I said... nothing like watching fights live and soaking in all the atmosphere. I've been to several over the years, and will attend many more, given the opportunity. However, that being said....

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Especially ringside, when you're actually BELOW the fighters. Once they move to the opposite side of the ring, you've lost all useful visual contact. Personally, I like to be seated a bit ABOVE the fighters. For MY money, it's the best angle. And yet, television coverage is superior as far as just getting a good view. That there's someone else deciding what the best angle is at a particular moment? Yeah... so what? Hopefully they're trained professionals, not just some bozos behind the cameras. A lot goes into the production of a televised fight event. Cameras are placed at key and strategic places... it's not just random.

And how can replays and slo-mos not be good? I don't know about you, but I'd rather give the producers AND the fans some credit and that the right exchanges are being replayed. Not to mention the benefits of replaying controversial shots like low blows, or cuts that could have been caused by either a punch or a headbutt.

I don't even think it's a close argument. But...... to each his own.

[Spicoli]

And what of the ringside situation where the action is in an area that one judge is behind the back of a fighter and cant see or behind the ref and they cant see who or whats landing?

Two thoughts. One is that is why there are three judges from different sides of the ring and second, that is why sound also sometimes matters.

I am NOT arguing rings judging is perfect. I am arguing it is a sufficiently different experience that we should not be surprised when it leads to different scoring. I would also say ringside judging is what we've always had and I see no other superior option that we should change it to.

I would take ringside judging over another that we have had and that is the Ref being the sole deciding factor in a contest. I'm not sure there was-is much oversight in that situation but many a fight had a situation where ref could 'structure' the flow as rounds went and make all calls regarding outcome...at the end raising one hand or both. Not entirely sure if they still judge in this manner but was very odd to me.

I mean really, what options do we have? If every armchair fan had a real impact with every shout we would have a Fantasy football or something. But boxing is indeed perseption and a matter of pick your poison.