405 replies to this topic

[Greg Pappas]

The atrocity that occurred at the end of the Bradley/Pacquiao fight serves as yet another reminder why boxing continues to slide in popularity, down an ever-darkening hole. I have a great deal of respect for those that put the gloves on... it can be a beautiful and brutal sport. However, the men that ru(i)n the sport -and those that judge the contests- have too often stolen from we fans, and disgraced what once was mythical... leaving --at least for me-- a stained and tainted memory, that may never fade away.

[mweb08]

There's lots of speculation of corruption here.

I didn't see the fight, but based on what everyone is saying, it seems quite fishy to me.

[SportsGuy]

The way most scored this fight seemed to make it seem like a Pacman blow out...and he "lost"? Just makes no sense.

He landed 100 more punches!

[DJ MC]

There's lots of speculation of corruption here.

I didn't see the fight, but based on what everyone is saying, it seems quite fishy to me.

Bill Simmons mentioned after the fight on Twitter that there was quite a bit of late money on Bradley.

Stuff like this is why I can't get into boxing. I already have a natural aversion to any athletic competition that involves judging, to the point that I find it very difficult to call boxing a true sport. I'm not a fan of purposeful violence in sports, be it beanball wars, or hockey enforcers, or fighting sports. Yet sometimes I feel as a sports fan that I should at least have some interest in and knowledge of boxing's past and present.

When you add in the obvious corruption within boxing, and the fact that every other real sport in the world has taken steps to eliminate corrupt and criminal elements from their competitions*, I just don't want to do it. I simply don't care.

*The one possible exception is soccer, because if I met a person in an airport who said they worked for FIFA or its sub-organizations, I wouldn't trust them to watch my luggage while I ran to the restroom. Let alone control the most popular sport in the world and events that lead to violence at levels from single matches to wars between nations. Even so, I do know that even if some at the upper levels show questionable (at best) morals, for the most part the sport is run as well as any similar organization. Probably better than the United Nations.

People say baseball is running the risk of turning off younger fans. Yet boxing isn't turning them on in the first place. Those fans go to wrestling or MMA, if they don't feel as I do about fighting sports.

Right now, boxing is dying, and there is no reason to care.

[Oriole85]

I know there are many sports conspiracy theorist out there, I'm not one of them. No matter what happens in the lottery every year someone is going to say it's rigged. If anything, I don't think Stern is too happy the Hornets won. NOLA isn't a prime NBA (or sports) market and most likely never will be.

Not really a boxing fan myself, but I think it's a lot harder for something to be a sport where you cannot tell the winner without a(n) "judge(s)." And I am not talking about bad officiating here. You know in baseball, football, basketball, hockey, who the winner is at the end of the game. Not so in gymnastics, figure skating, boxing. The former two are difficult, but with all due respect to the participants, those are psuedo-art.

[lordbrook]

I think it's near sighted to say that judging detracts from sports in general. I feel like there is judging that happens in almost every sport. An umpire is an arbiter that can affect the outcome, just like a ref in football, soccer, hockey, basketball, etc. If you wanted a sport where there is no judging you'd have to only watch marathon running or something. In my opinion I should never remember who an official is after a game, match, or whatever. I just really wish there were a more quantifiable way to hold the officials responsible. Boxing, basketball, soccer and a few others have some real generalized ways of determining winners or infractions. To me it's rare when baseball makes me mad about officiating, but I'm often bitching about refs in most others. I don't fall into a real conspiracy camp, but I think there are many officials that go into a game or match with an agenda of some sort.

[Oriole85]

I think it's near sighted to say that judging detracts from sports in general. I feel like there is judging that happens in almost every sport. An umpire is an arbiter that can affect the outcome, just like a ref in football, soccer, hockey, basketball, etc. If you wanted a sport where there is no judging you'd have to only watch marathon running or something. In my opinion I should never remember who an official is after a game, match, or whatever. I just really wish there were a more quantifiable way to hold the officials responsible. Boxing, basketball, soccer and a few others have some real generalized ways of determining winners or infractions. To me it's rare when baseball makes me mad about officiating, but I'm often bitching about refs in most others. I don't fall into a real conspiracy camp, but I think there are many officials that go into a game or match with an agenda of some sort.

There's a clear difference on how boxing, gymnastics, figure skating, diving are "scored" versus baseball, football, hockey, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, track, swimming (races), auto car racing. The former is much more opinionated based than factual.

While you can argue whether a foul, penalty, interference is committed in some sports, it is harder to deny if a basket goes in, puck crosses the line, goal goes into the net, the run scores, football goes over plane, etc. That's not to say wrong calls don't happen, but *judge* based sports is more in the eye of the beholder. There is a lot more gray area in these sports.

[lordbrook]

There's a clear difference on how boxing, gymnastics, figure skating, diving are "scored" versus baseball, football, hockey, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, track, swimming (races), auto car racing. The former is much more opinionated based than factual.

While you can argue whether a foul, penalty, interference is committed in some sports, it is harder to deny if a basket goes in, puck crosses the line, goal goes into the net, the run scores, football goes over plane, etc. That's not to say wrong calls don't happen, but *judge* based sports is more in the eye of the beholder. There is a lot more gray area in these sports.

I would disagree, mainly because the outcome of a game can often be based on a judgement call. I can understand what you're saying, however even with the judge based sports there is a specific criteria they are supposed to use for their judgement, e.g. degree of difficulty, number of punches landed, knockdowns, etc. My contention is that while you are correct in saying that a point score determines the winner in a game, the way those points are scored is often the result of the direct action of the officiator. To me it's no different when a team of judges incorrectly awards the victory to one boxer over another, or when a ref incorrectly calls a penalty kick and subsequent red card in soccer.

[Oriole85]

There's a clear difference on how boxing, gymnastics, figure skating, diving are "scored" versus baseball, football, hockey, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, track, swimming (races), auto car racing. The former is much more opinionated based than factual.

While you can argue whether a foul, penalty, interference is committed in some sports, it is harder to deny if a basket goes in, puck crosses the line, goal goes into the net, the run scores, football goes over plane, etc. That's not to say wrong calls don't happen, but *judge* based sports is more in the eye of the beholder. There is a lot more gray area in these sports.

I would disagree, mainly because the outcome of a game can often be based on a judgement call. I can understand what you're saying, however even with the judge based sports there is a specific criteria they are supposed to use for their judgement, e.g. degree of difficulty, number of punches landed, knockdowns, etc. My contention is that while you are correct in saying that a point score determines the winner in a game, the way those points are scored is often the result of the direct action of the officiator. To me it's no different when a team of judges incorrectly awards the victory to one boxer over another, or when a ref incorrectly calls a penalty kick and subsequent red card in soccer.

The difference is a typical judgment call in boxing has a lot *judgment* has a lot more judgment than baseball. Also no amount of replay is going to likely change your judgment in the former. With instant replay you can come to the right *judgment* in the latter. Believe me I get what your saying. It's the cynical, there's human error.

Also a clear difference is in the non-judge sports, the officiating is a lot more responsible. In these judge sports, from my understand, each judge is weighted the same. So you have 7 judges, you can have seven different results. In the non-art sports, the officials each cover an area.

Let me put it this way, if the officating in baseball and boxing is the same, I feel a lot better about the umps getting it right.

Human error happens, the errors tend to be worse IMO when you need a "judge" to determine it.

[DJ MC]

There's a clear difference on how boxing, gymnastics, figure skating, diving are "scored" versus baseball, football, hockey, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, track, swimming (races), auto car racing. The former is much more opinionated based than factual.

While you can argue whether a foul, penalty, interference is committed in some sports, it is harder to deny if a basket goes in, puck crosses the line, goal goes into the net, the run scores, football goes over plane, etc. That's not to say wrong calls don't happen, but *judge* based sports is more in the eye of the beholder. There is a lot more gray area in these sports.

I would disagree, mainly because the outcome of a game can often be based on a judgement call. I can understand what you're saying, however even with the judge based sports there is a specific criteria they are supposed to use for their judgement, e.g. degree of difficulty, number of punches landed, knockdowns, etc. My contention is that while you are correct in saying that a point score determines the winner in a game, the way those points are scored is often the result of the direct action of the officiator. To me it's no different when a team of judges incorrectly awards the victory to one boxer over another, or when a ref incorrectly calls a penalty kick and subsequent red card in soccer.

In sports like baseball, etc., though, the officials are (in theory, anyway) incidental to the contest. You could hold one without them, and when they are brought more into the forefront of the contest it is generally negative. Something like gymnastics requires judges to even have the competition.

Boxing is somewhere in the middle, because in theory (and in the original forms) you could just fight forever until someone is knocked out or gives up. However, the modern form of the sport requires judges to allow for limited-round bouts ending in a decision.

[Oriole85]

We talk about robot umps, could we have robot judges for boxing? DJ, I agree with your assesment of boxing being in the middle.

[Tyler Bingaman]

Let's make the fights decided by knockout or t.k.o. only.. change the way the rounds are.. 5 min. rounds until someone can't fight anymore... might up the interest, and definitely eliminate judges corruption.

[DJ MC]

Let's make the fights decided by knockout or t.k.o. only.. change the way the rounds are.. 5 min. rounds until someone can't fight anymore... might up the interest, and definitely eliminate judges corruption.

The problem with that is you will see in increase of severe and permanent injuries, and deaths, in the ring. Not just long-term problems and early demises, but during individual fights. That will kill interest even further, assuming the sport wouldn't end up outlawed.

[Oriole85]

Let's make the fights decided by knockout or t.k.o. only.. change the way the rounds are.. 5 min. rounds until someone can't fight anymore... might up the interest, and definitely eliminate judges corruption.

Is their a ref in this scenario or is this the old school yard fight?

[Tyler Bingaman]

Let's make the fights decided by knockout or t.k.o. only.. change the way the rounds are.. 5 min. rounds until someone can't fight anymore... might up the interest, and definitely eliminate judges corruption.

Is their a ref in this scenario or is this the old school yard fight?

With any intellectual thought used, it is simply a bad, bad idea. lol

[Greg Pappas]

http://espn.go.com/b... ... ey-rematch

Forgot to post this last week... Pacquiao wins WBO review.

[Greg Pappas]

This thread is an example of the disinterest in the sport of boxing. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. My Give-a-Care meter is at 2 out of 10.

[BSLChrisStoner]

SI: Arum eyes April 13 for Mayweather vs. Pacquiao
http://sportsillustr...2_a11&eref=sihp

[BSLMikeLowe]

http://espn.go.com/b...ing-puerto-rico

He certainly had his issues in life, and it sounds like it may have been what lead to him being shot. Despite all that, he was one of the great boxers of his generation and equally renown as a showman/crowd-pleaser. Hopefully his family makes the right choice and does not allow him to lie there like a vegetable any longer.

[Adam Wolff]

Marquez knocked Pac Man out in the 6th round. Straight put him to sleep. It was actually a really entertaining fight and I'm not a boxing enthusiast. They were aggressively going after each other most of the fight, especially from the 4th round on. Very enjoyable to watch.