By the title of my letter I think you will already be aware of why I am writing to you today, and I hope I am one of many to write to you on this topic.
This past weekend the boxing world saw a fantastic event which pitted boxing's pound for pound superstar Floyd Mayweather Jr. against young champion Saul Alvarez. The undercard was a bit special too!
Sadly, as with many weekends, we saw yet another disappointing effort from a high profile judge. I am, of course, talking about the 114-114 score dealt out by Cynthia Ross.
Thankfully her scorecard did not affect the decision of the fight (although her scorecard of 115-113 certainly helped out Timothy Bradley last year in his fight against Manny Pacquiao).
However, we fans certainly didn't let it pass by unnoticed.
I do appreciate that Keith Kizer and Bill Brady have both stuck up for her since, and I think that is a good trait (as I would hope my boss would also stick up for me).
I suppose it might be an idea to point out now that I am not one of these so called "Flomos" (fan addicted to Floyd Mayweather); in fact, if you wish, here is a blog I wrote issuing a strong rejection that he is superior to Sugar Ray Robinson: ENJOY!
I understand thoroughly that the scoring of fights is very objective (I, for example, felt Lucas Matthysse just about edged his fight against Danny Garcia this past weekend; which was lamented by fans of my boxing page).
I also understand, and vehemently object to, judges scoring "sympathy rounds" in order to keep a fight interesting. We see this all the time. For example: Guillermo Rigondeaux vs Nonito Donaire. Rigondeaux CLEARLY won eleven or twelve rounds, however judges scored it by the slightest of margins (How John Stewart scored it 114-113 is beyond belief. Maybe I should email the NYSAC next?!). Or how about my fellow Briton, Carl Froch, in his effort against widely recognised super middleweight king Andre Ward. Froch won at best three rounds. He lost by just two points on two scorecards; John Stewart was also a judge in that fight (I really think I should email the NYSAC!). Or how about the utterly outrageous scoring in the Pernell Whitaker-Julio Cesar Chavez classic where the great American dominated his Mexican rival throughout (winning a minimum of ten rounds) only to be handed a majority draw.
I understand "the game", of course. I've been watching boxing since I was a child: No matter how easily "boxer A" gets beaten, he must not be allowed to be beaten by too large of a margin as it affects both his promoter's usage of said boxer (e.g. who wants to see a guy who got dominated in his previous fight?), as well as affecting an org's ability to make money (e.g. boxer who cannot fight at elite level cannot pay sanctioning fees). Let's not beat around the bush; we all know how it works.
However, we are all fans and we all continue to watch. What is utterly intolerable though, is judging which is so lenient it allows a boxer who has been thoroughly "taken to school", so to speak, to be allowed to claw his/her way back into a fight. Forget what the promoters think, forget what the orgs think, and simply get judges to score fights properly. Obviously this would all be easier if there was an international governing body (e.g. FIFA in soccer), but there isn't, so we must soldier on as we can.
Boxing is becoming more and more bogus by the day, and anybody at the higher echelons who can help would be very much appreciated.
No Holds Barred