In Florida, we call it the ?cone of uncertainty.?
Whenever a hurricane clears the island of Hispaniola in the eastern Caribbean, meteorologists of every Sunshine State persuasion are sent scrambling to computer models to trace the path of the would-be storm as it approaches our tourist- and retiree-sopped peninsula.
At the business end of the cautionary arc is a flared-out section that illustrates the few-hundred-mile range within which the rain, wind and other fun and games will actually make landfall. And while their pre-landfall appearances on camera tend to lean a smidge toward the overdramatic, my 11-plus years in the southernmost state have shown me the weather guys generally get it right.
Which is why, in the aftermath of yet another teeth-gnashing weekend of boxing judging ? and having already seen the predictably fatalistic pronouncements that never follow too far behind ? I?ve decided to co-opt a little of Jim Cantore?s act for the boxing crowd.
Introducing, ladies and gentlemen? the ?cone of judging uncertainty.?
Available from me to you, my cherished Tuesday fans, free of charge.
Its practical application for non-dangerous storm situations is simple. When you watch a fight and add up your own scores, simply overlay the cone onto your paperwork and allow for a two-point swing in either direction from what you?d tallied ? because, after all, none of us is infallible.
And let?s face it, if you can?t stay within two rounds of a generally accepted norm ? whether you?re a professionally licensed judge or you hawk overpriced smokes for a living ? maybe you ought to try scoring MMA instead.
At any rate, if the eventual official scorecard totals fall within the cone, the decision is legit and a case can be made that the right man won. And if they don?t, well, then feel free to proceed with your rants about incompetence, corruption or whatever other windmills you?d care to tilt at.
Or at the very least, go ahead and reconsider that subscription to Fighters Only.
Given the latest controversy of the moment ? Saturday?s Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury heavyweight duel in Los Angeles ? the arrival of the cone on store shelves is particularly well-timed.
Using my own score totals ? incidentally, I had Fury winning, 114-112 ? and applying the cone reveals that a similar verdict in Wilder?s favor could also be appropriate.
Obviously, the nuance of any fight indicates in which direction that allowance is best utilized.
Given my own perspective on Saturday?s scrap ? which I had a little wider through 11 before handing the last dramatic round to Wilder ? I?d be more apt to believe I shaded close rounds in the reigning champ?s favor than Fury?s, meaning a four-point nod for the Gypsy King would be more palatable to me than a two-pointer for the Bronze Bomber.
Either way, though, unless you think your scorecard is so pristine that no variance is acceptable, the cone does allow for a tad more contemplative thought before clicking send on yet another incendiary conspiracy theorist rant that provides always ample heat but precious little light.
Unlike a lot of people in this gig, I?ve never been that sure I?m smartest person in the room.
So while I concur that near-shutout scores in Fury?s favor may be misguided, they?re only slightly different than the official card that had Wilder ahead by a four ? calculations that indicate to me the scorer stopped paying attention shortly after Jimmy Lennon Jr. told us it was ?Showtime.?
To these eyes, it was a good, tough fight and could have gone either way.
And though I?m no one to put blind faith in punch-count statistics, when one guy lands a better percentage of his jabs, his power shots and his total throws ? as Fury did ? he makes a pretty strong case that he deserves to win. For me, that?s good enough.
Use it in good health? and if the trees start blowing sideways, evacuate.
