Boxing
The Scoring Controversy: Part I

By Steve Trellert

21.09 - If anything, the second Oscar De La Hoya versus Shane Mosely fight created more action outside of the ring than within. The week that followed has had much in the way of head shaking, head scratching and a debate that has of yet not dissipated. When the judges scored a unanimous victory in favor of Mosely the initial reaction was nothing short of disbelief. The HBO (Home Box Office) commentators had unanimously agreed that De La Hoya was the victor and even polls afterwards found concurring public sentiment as 70-80% of the polled viewing public agreed. Although some elements of the ringside press felt the decision just, the majority was heavily standing on one side. Reactions by commentator George Foreman and promoter Bob Arum even went so far as to indicate some kind of corruption, without proof of course, but that was the strength of their conviction.

Since that initial reaction things have calmed down a bit as Bob Arum has backtracked in some of his statements and a growth in agreement with the official decision has occurred. This could be most recently seen amongst the ESPN Friday Night Fights commentating crew as they all virtually unanimously agreed that the decision in Mosely's favor was justifiable. They indicated that the public response may have been influenced by the HBO commentators and their favorable disposition towards Oscar De La Hoya (he has a contract with that network). In other words the public was swayed by HBO's overestimation of Oscar's performance. Of interest is ESPN analyst Teddy Atlas' comments that he viewed the fight again with the sound off and re-scored the fight narrowly in Mosely's favor. Although this suggested "influence" has a certain degree of truth to it, it can also be largely discounted.

In essence ESPN is overestimating the influence of the HBO commentary. Why? First of all it assumes a certain amount of gullibility on the part of the public, this in itself could be viewed as insulting as it discounts the public's awareness of "you cannot believe everything you hear". Now of course in some cases people do get the wool pulled over their eyes, but in this case they were not only told what happened but actually saw the fight with their own eyes. More importantly, what the ESPN commentators fail to notice is the fact that a large amount of the population cannot or do not hear the commentary while watching this kind of fight. Since Pay-per-view is relatively expensive, most choose to view the fight in either a bar or with a group of friends and share the cost. In this environment the announcers are frequently inaudible due to the commotion in the viewing environment. People focus and watch what's occurring but find it difficult to hear the commentary due to other audible distractions. Now of course that still leaves the existence of Harold Lederman's card as it is visually seen, but this is only of marginal importance in this scenario as it is but one man's opinion (hence its influence largely negligible).

Since this "environment" is usually the case, viewers must interpret fights solely in terms of what they see rather of what they hear, and what they saw was a De La Hoya victory. But can the majority be incorrect? The answer here is yes only if the public at hand does not know what to look for in scoring a fight. Now in boxing this can very easily be the case since there is nothing other than the vague notions of "Clean Punching, Ring Generalship and Effective Aggressiveness". Well, what is clean punching? Is a punch only landing on the face, chest and stomach relevant? If a punch hits the shoulders or upper arms is that an effective punch? If not why? Does it do no damage? Does it do any less damage than an equivalent punch on the forehead? What is effective aggression? Is moving forward and throwing an occasional punch more effective than a backward moving fighter who lands twice as many punches (or a third more) of similar quality? Is ring generalship the equivalent of holding the initiative? What is a "power punch"? Is it any punch that is not a jab? How are punches qualitatively measured? Is it based on how hard it sounds or on the reaction of the fighter it lands on? Clearly all of these questions have to be asked, defined and measured in some kind of way. Additionally some kind of universal criteria must exist so that both judges and viewers have a sense of what to look for. Unfortunately, if this does not occur more of these controversy's will arise (they still will with a criteria but less so), and for boxing, this always seems to be rightly or wrongly associated with an air of corruption. For these situations to diminish, and a cleaning of the air to occur, a general consensus in regards to scoring must arise, and this can only be provided by an organization that has created some semblance of legitimate authority in the world of boxing. That being "The Ring" Magazine. They have been relatively successful with Ranking Fighters, why not a scoring criteria?

Next time in Part II, I will present my own criteria for scoring a round.

If you have any comments regarding this article, email me at Vancanste@aol.com or post here at the best boxing on the web, Eastside Boxing.

0 comments
 


Bookmark and Share

 

If you detect any issues with the legality of this site, problems are always unintentional and will be corrected with notification.
The views and opinions of all writers expressed on eastsideboxing.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Management.
Copyright © 2001- 2015 East Side Boxing.com - Privacy Policy