It was once the case that when a British fighter was to fight in Germany, especially for a world title of some description, people would scoff, “Best get the knockout then.” Martin Murray against Felix Sturm, Robin Reid against Sven Ottke, Macklin against Sturm, the list of murky, incomprehensible decisions goes on, and whilst I must stipulate, bad decisions happen everywhere from time to time, Germany-particularly in the 90’s and early noughties-was certainly seen as a breeding ground for contentious and to be more sinister, corrupt cards.
However, the last 18 months have shown that the officiating in Britain has closed the gap on that unwanted moniker significantly, with a host of decisions that even prompted respected Boxing News editor Matt Christie to label the situation in his editorial as ‘the bog of eternal stench’ following the fiasco that saw Lewis Ritson given a decision over Miguel Vasquez. A bout in which judge Terry O’ Connor had been alleged to have been viewing a mobile phone in between rounds. The allegation was investigated and to my knowledge, there was no further follow up, but the point is, Matt was right. The eternal stench is not only stinking out the arenas, but stinking out the whole sport and it has made the officiating in Britain a laughing stock. Memes are mocked up every weekend before boxing events even start, mocking the A-Star referees or judges in attendance, such is their notoriety.
The bout between David Adeleye and Kamil Sokolowski in April was another example where referee Marcus McDonnell (who scored the fight) saw a very different affair to most people who watched on. That evening Frank Warren, promoter of prospect Adeleye was heard shouting “jab, jab, jab” even sensing himself the fight was slipping away. I remember speaking to master of ceremonies that night Thomas Treiber, who said “I really think Adeleye better go to church and thank a few people.” It was again McDonnell’s decision at the weekend for the fight between Campbell Hatton and opponent Sonni Martinez that drew gasps from those in attendance and some very strong criticism on social media. It may have only been a 6-rounder but you would be hard pushed to find anyone making a case for the young Manchester fighter to have won the bout. By the way, there can be no blame attributed to young Hatton, he fought gallantly and was desperate to prevail, but the 20-year-old was in a bit too deep on this occasion.
Something that appeared strange (to me anyway) was the body language of Referee McDonnell on Saturday, he seemed to raise the hand of Hatton with a very subdued look and then very quickly made his exit from the ring, almost in anticipation of the backlash.
What is the issue?
I do not think anyone believes that judging is an easy task, boxing is a subjective sport, it may be the sweet science, but it is not a scientific sport in terms of its scoring system. Nevertheless, the industry deserves answers after such contentious scoring. General secretary of the BBBofC Robert Smith has attempted to address the situation at times, but I fail to see any improvement and the odd admission or sound bite saying that performances or decisions are monitored, does not seem to be having the desired effect on the quality of officiating. So, the issues are that nobody knows how the officials have arrived at their decision as there’s no explanation, there is nothing in place for any consequence following a poor result.
Another potential issue is that there appears to be a subconscious decision making process from referees or judges that always appear to benefit the home fighter, the prospect, the big name. Let’s be honest, we can not just blame incompetence, if the decisions were just a result of incompetency, then the away fighter or to put it bluntly, the fighter who isn’t backed by a huge promotional outfit would benefit just as often. So is there a pressure (even if subconscious) from promoters? possibly, purely because of the money involved, but it certainly can not be attributed to pressure from fans, because even the most raucous, partisan crowds understand a robbery when they see one and they will let you know if you have got it wrong, even if it goes against the support of their fighter.
The Solution?
Maybe if the watching public knew what the criteria should be for scoring a fight, rather than have to listen to commentators use the old cliches that are trotted out like “It’s what you like” it would help. For example, maybe the BBBofC could publish the documents that are used to score fights when giving the referees licences out. Maybe an independent panel could be established that takes a number of fights each month and analyses the performance of judges and questions them on their scoring.
The sport needs clarity, boxing remains one of the only sports where incorrect decisions are not really acknowledged. When was the last time an appeal against a decision was upheld? When did a referee or official last say “I was wrong” after a boxing bout? In football, cards can be rescinded, horse racing has a steward’s enquiry, tennis and cricket have replays. Boxing has a huge media fallout and then nothing.
Promoters, trainers, coaches, fighters, pundits, have a moral obligation to the sport to call out these decisions, even if they have benefitted themselves, otherwise this stench will linger on too long and ruin our appetite.
Comments