|
Post by Paul Magno on Oct 21, 2009 0:31:31 GMT -5
Look at the official scorecards of the three judges for Froch/Dirrell...The Italian judge gave Froch the last two rounds of the fight when they were obvious Dirrell rounds...If he had scored those rounds properly, his score would've read 114-113 for Dirrell and Dirrell would've won the split decision... The pattern that can be seen here is that this guy was determined to see Froch win, but realized that he hadn't given him enough rounds yet to cover...So, on his scorecard, Froch was going to win the last two rounds...no matter what...
|
|
|
Post by Charlie 21er on Oct 21, 2009 2:13:22 GMT -5
How does the point deduction work? On my scorecard I have rd10 an even 9-9 round because I felt that Dirrell won it despite the deduction. Obviously all three judges felt Dirrell won it, but they don't reflect it on the cards. Does it just get deducted from the final score?
My score gave Froch 1, 2, 7, 8, 9.
Mr. Barrovecchio's card is incredibly suspect. Rd11 was absolutely dominated by Dirrell, him not scoring that round for Dirrell in itself calls into question his scoring.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Magno on Oct 21, 2009 2:38:57 GMT -5
How does the point deduction work? On my scorecard I have rd10 an even 9-9 round because I felt that Dirrell won it despite the deduction. Obviously all three judges felt Dirrell won it, but they don't reflect it on the cards. Does it just get deducted from the final score? My score gave Froch 1, 2, 7, 8, 9. Mr. Barrovecchio's card is incredibly suspect. Rd11 was absolutely dominated by Dirrell, him not scoring that round for Dirrell in itself calls into question his scoring. Since it's a 10 point must system, the winner of the round has to get 10 points ...point deductions are figured in aside from the final score... ...Round 11 is the proof of something fishy going on in the Italian's scoring...there's no way any reasonable judge could see round 11 for Froch...It was probably the most one-sided round of the fight... This would be something that a real commission or sanctioning body would do...sit down and review the fight and try to figure out what each judge was thinking while scoring...Calling the 11th round for Froch was beyond a blown call...It's the equivalent of ruling a bloop single to be a home run. If I were Commish, Barrovecchio would be in my office Monday morning, watching the replay and explaining exactly why he scored the fight the way he did...and, in particular, how he could've given the 11th to Froch...If he can give a convincing justification, he's off the hook...If not, he's toast and maybe, at the very least, the judging of the 11th is reversed and the fight becomes a draw...
|
|
|
Post by ste100 on Oct 21, 2009 4:00:11 GMT -5
thats exactly what i would like to see paul. and it shouldnt be that hard to have that system in place.
|
|
daika
Regional Champ
Posts: 175
|
Post by daika on Oct 21, 2009 4:54:19 GMT -5
Good idea paul but very hard to put such a system in place. If fight decisions could be over turned there would be a lot of room for corruption. And the obvious heart break of winning a fight and being told a week later that you've lost the fight would bring about a lot of controversy. So we should stick to the judges decision but make sure the corrupt ones are ridiculed and bleached out of the system
|
|
|
Post by Dafs117 on Oct 21, 2009 4:55:56 GMT -5
van de wilde scored 4-9 to Froch! Everybody's overlooked that! All judges are a disgrace to boxing. Even the Mexican. The 8th was clearly Froch as Dirrell did nothing.
On another night:
Ladies and Gentelman, after 12 rounds of action we go to the judges scorecards
Judge at ringside Charlie R. Hogan from the United States scored the bout a 115-113
Judge at ringside Paul Magno from Mexico scored the fight 115-112
and Judge Dafydd Thomas from Wales scored the fight 115-114
all to the winner by unanimous decision.... Andre 'The Matrix' Dirrell
|
|
|
Post by ste100 on Oct 21, 2009 5:08:28 GMT -5
the system shouldnt be hard to put in place, having an employee talk to his boss about his performance is pretty standard, it doesnt mean that we will have constant results overturned, just that we have some feedback.
|
|
|
Post by greenmachine on Oct 21, 2009 6:44:43 GMT -5
This is why I've felt for a long time that four judges and the ref should be scoring the fight. We went through this with the first Lewis-Holyfield fight and the questionable scoring wa deemed a result of the different angles of view each judge has. Four judges and the ref scoring would cover every angle.
Aren't judges supposed to hand in the cards after each round to avoid them adding their cards during the bout?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Magno on Oct 21, 2009 10:22:50 GMT -5
This is why I've felt for a long time that four judges and the ref should be scoring the fight. We went through this with the first Lewis-Holyfield fight and the questionable scoring wa deemed a result of the different angles of view each judge has. Four judges and the ref scoring would cover every angle. Aren't judges supposed to hand in the cards after each round to avoid them adding their cards during the bout? regardless of whether there's a running tally of scores or not, judges always know their own scores... And, while adding more judges could help, if the system doesn't get fixed, it wouldn't matter if there were 500 judges- something shady would still happen... As far as judging reforms being difficult to implement...Well, all other major sports implement a review process of their officials...and if a decision is found to be corruptly made, I have no problem with that decision being overturned.
|
|
|
Post by boriblaze1 on Oct 21, 2009 20:01:08 GMT -5
sh*t you we should have known the Italians were going to pick Froch to win that was a no brainer!
|
|