- Jul 15, 2005
I'm not 100% clear on the boxing scoring process. I don't really know the difference between the judges' scorecards, and this tabulation sheet. And I don't know the methods that are used to tabulate these scores. Is it possible that the scores were changed just on the tabulation sheet, and not on the judges scorecards themselves, or is that not possible? I don't know the answers here, but i do know that if i was in charge of the tabulation sheets, and if the public could see these sheets, and if a change would be questioned...i'd probably NOT simply write one number over the first number, i'd probably start with a clean sheet. But maybe that's just me.Gene Conleys Plane Ticket said:The scorecard you see there is not the judges' scorecard. It's the state athletic commission's tabulation sheet. The judges themselves fill out a card after each round and hand it in. They never touch it again after that. So the apparent cross-outs on that card pictured on boxrec.com are the state commission official correcting his own read of the cards.
Now, how he misread a "10" as a "9" is another story altogether. As you said earlier, Ken Morita must have the worst handwriting of any boxing judge ever.
I disagree here. First of all, we don't have a blown call here. A blown call, is the equivalent of a missed low blow, or calling a slip a knockdown or vice versa, or stepping in and stopping a fight too early. Something like that. The NFL equivalent here would be if say the Patriots beat the Steelers 17-16, the fans went home, and then the officals realized they forgot about the safety the steelers got in the 1st quarter, and changed the score to 18-17. Anytime that scoring is done in secret, you will always question outcomes such as this one. I don't know if there is a way to improve on this...maybe judges scores could be announced live...but i'm sure that doing so would present it's own set of problems.I really don't worry about this giving boxing a bad name or a "black eye." I just think fight fans and fight writers love to bitch about how fucked up the sport is. Which doesn't mean that it's not fucked up. It only means that things like this can get blown way out of proportion due to the sport's legitimate but exaggerated reputation for shadiness.
I mean, almost every week in the NFL brings some blown official's call that changes the course of a game -- even with instant replay. And no one talks about football getting a bad name or a black eye. Is someone going to tell me there's no corruption or shadiness in football? Come on.
But I do think outcomes like this give boxing a bad name. Not to diehard fans, who will watch anyway, and realize that these things occur. But it does discourage marginal fans, or people that might become fans from watching boxing. I don't think this particular circumstance hurts, because the fight wasn't that big, so netither was the story. But what if the same thing happened in a DeLaHoya-Maywhether fight? Not only would it be seen by more people, but it would be a top story on all the sports shows and talk radio. A lot of people that might become boxing fans, will see this "shady outcome" which will reinforce to them why following boxing isn't worth it to them.
For a sport struggling to reclaim it's popularity, and find a new generation of fans, anything that reinforces the "boxing is shady" stereotype doesn't help win those fans.
I may have sounded more down on Juarez than I really am. I do think he is a good fighter, and he held his own against one of the best 130lb fighters in the world. Berrera is clearly becoming the past of this division (though he still has a few fights left) and Juarez is the future, if not at 130, then another class. What I meant was that Juarez really has not beaten anyone good yet. I think his biggest name opponnent before last night was Humberto Soto, who I don't think is very good, and who beat Juarez pretty convincigly.And I wouldn't exactly call Juarez a "decent amateur with a spotty pro career." He won a silver medal at the 2000 Olympics and should have won a gold except for a referee who was later suspended for his actions in the gold medal bout. Before his Olympic "loss" he'd won 68 amateur fights in a row. As a pro, this was just his second loss, and it's arguable that he should have won this one, too. He's damn good fighter who almost certainly will hold a title or two in the near future. Barrera himself admitted that he knew this would be a tough fight and that Juarez is the real thing.
As for a rematch, it definitely would not be in the best interest of Berrera, who would be better off against Morales or Pacquiao especially in the pocketbook. The only problem is that Morales is fighting Pacquiao in November, and Berrera is also scheduled to fight in November. So, is Berrera better off against a stiff (I bet Nagy is available)? Of couse. But a better fight would be a rematch vrs Juarez, or maybe Barrios? Is there enough time to get a Juraez-Barrios fight in, and the winner getting Berrera in November? That would be interesting, which means it has less than zero chance of happening.
Anyway, there are a lot of great fights coming up in 2006:
Saturday HBO has Jhonny Gonzalez v. Fernando Montiel which should be interesting.
June 3rd Showtime has Castillo-Corrales III
June 10th, a couple of PPV fights: Tarver-Hopkins on one card, Cotto on another.
June 17th, HBO has a better fight (in my book) then either PPV with Taylor-Wright.
July 15th, Mosley-Vargas on PPV. (I've always been a huge Mosley guy)
July 22nd, Baldomir-Gatti on HBO. Gatti always entertains.
And there are many other cool fights scheduled for the Fall. Should be an interesting year.