Don’t just score the fighters score the refs too!

Don’t just score the fighters score the refs too!

Carl Froch, the current Super-Middleweight IBF & WBA World Champion, emphatically refused what many believe to be a necessary rematch with George Groves by claiming there was “no need to go over old ground”. If that is so why are so many fight fans in UK and the world over demanding this rematch? The answer lies, unfortunately, with one Howard Foster, the referee on the night and the man who, in many people’s opinion, brought the fight to a premature end thus declaring Carl Froch the winner. Pundits, experts, fans and fighters seemed to unanimously agree that the fight was stopped early and thus another great fight, another great battle, another war was tarnished with the discussion of a referee or judge decision rather than the result itself.

The boxing world is not short of controversy especially when it comes to decisions that govern the end of a fight. Cast your minds back to Amir Khan vs. Lamont Peterson in December 2011 and this time the controversy, aside of the time taken to add up 12 numbers by the judges, was around the points that Khan was docked for pushing, with many people, including ex-referees suggesting that the points deduction was very harsh and perhaps unnecessary.

A month earlier the trilogy completing fight between pound-for-pound legend Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez was again the centre of discussion as many felt that Marquez had finally beaten his arch nemesis only for Pacquiao to be given the decision.

Perhaps the controversial decision of recent times however was Pacquiao’s first loss in over 7 years at the hands of unbeaten Timothy Bradley in 2012 which you had to search far and wide to find anyone who thought Bradley had won, anyone except for the 2 of the 3 judges who scored in Bradley’s favour. Following the uproar the World Boxing Organisation (WBO) instigated a review whereby five international judges evaluated a video of the fight and unanimously scored it in favour of Pacquiao.

So how do we end this controversy? 4 simple steps:

1. Uniformity across the governing bodies about how the bout should be scored by the judges
2. Calibration of judges scoring from bout to bout to ensure a minimal margin for error
3. Clear and concise definition to the referee as to when they should stop a fight
4. Open forum in which the referees and judges state their decision

1.   Uniformity across the governing bodies about how the bout should be scored by the judges

How can 3 qualified and world recognised judges view the same fight so differently as with a split decision? Often you hear pundits and journalists suggesting that perhaps one judge was viewing the fact that the winning fighter was “busier” whilst another judge was looking for the more effective punches. Well this shouldn’t be in debate – the judges should be given a clear directive as to what constitutes a winner in a fight that goes the distance and that directive should be able to be applied after the fight and the outcome should be the same.

2.   Calibration of judges scoring from bout to bout to ensure a minimal margin for error

After all world title fights a panel of judges, as with the Pacquiao-Bradley fight, should watch the fight, score it, and compare their scores with that of the judges of the night. If a judge is consistently 50% off the score of the panel, fight after fight, you give them the necessary training to ensure that they can score the fight more effectively in future. In the English Premier League referees of football matches are assessed and if their performance is consistently below par they are given lower profile matches to referee to help develop their decision-making and eventually they can move back up to the high profile matches.

3.   Clear and concise definition to the referee as to when they should stop a fight

The referee should be given a set of criteria, all or some, of which have to be met in order for the fight to be stopped. Currently the criteria are loosely set around the ability of the fighter to defend himself, whether he is fighting back, whether he is taking sustained punishment – all of which leaves too much to the interpretation of the referee, which shouldn’t be the case. In the case of George Groves he was fighting back, defending himself and was not taking sustained punishment – so why was the fight stopped? Again – this comes down to the interpretation of the referee and it’s unfair to put that much pressure on one man and his interpretation. The referee should be able to cite exactly why he called it off i.e.: he took more than 3 power punches in a row without reply, did not throw a connecting punch back and this was the 2^nd time, including the knock down, that he was in trouble – simple, all conditions met, fight is stopped, no argument. But the rules and guidance are not that clear, it is simply not clear enough.

4.   Open forum in which the referees and judges state their decision

In all sports if the manager has a bad day he faces the media, if a player plays badly he’s questioned in the post-match interviews, a fighter has a bad fight he’s questioned about it seconds later in the ring! The referee however does not have to answer for his actions – why? After the Froch-Groves match the referee was shielded away and the British Boxing Board of Control went as far as to say they’ve asked Howard Foster NOT to do any interviews – why? Would it have been such a bad thing for the referee to give a small interview after the fight and simply “in my opinion Groves was not able to defend himself effectively? He may argue otherwise but I had to make my decision and at the time I believe allowing him to take more punishment could have proved dangerous for him. I have since seen the replays and can accept why some people think the fight was stopped early but unfortunately I do not have the benefit of the replay and have to make the decision, whilst ensuring I protect the boxers, in a matter of seconds”. Not everyone would have been happy with that response, people never are, but at least it would have been a response and we’d know why the referee felt it necessary to stop the fight.

Until the referees and judges are scored and marked themselves, made to answer for their decisions and made to speak up and explain their decisions we will forever be talking about “decisions” rather than the epic performances that two warriors in the ring put on for us. The referees and judges will no doubt argue that in order to do that they need clear and concise guidance and direction as to whether they score a busier fighter as the winning throwing more punches or the more effective fighter having thrown the better punches.

A great example of this is the fight between Canelo Alvarez and Floyd Mayweather, which many, except for one of the judges, believe that Mayweather won comfortably. A lot of people post-fight argued that Canelo should’ve adopted an approach more akin to that which Miguel Cotto had utilised against Mayweather – the problem is of course that whilst we are unanimous in our belief that Cotto gave Mayweather more of a fight than Canelo the fact remains that the margin of defeat for Cotto was greater than the margin of defeat for Canelo – and that in itself highlights the problem, currently, with the judging and the refereeing.

-Ali Khan

Contributor for www.BehindTheGloves.com