It does not happen often but high-profile fights are sometimes spoiled by dubious decisions.
When Timothy Bradley was handed a split-decision win over Manny Pacquiao in June 2012, the resulting controversy brought back arguments and debates that had been part of boxing for as long as anyone can remember.
Many experts felt Pacquiao had done enough to win and to claim the WBO welterweight title. The decision was debatable, to say the least, but not as bad as some other well-documented results.
Even the still undefeated Floyd Mayweather has been involved in a similar controversy. Many people disagreed with the judges when Mayweather was handed a unanimous decision to relieve Jose Luis Castillo of the WBC lightweight title.
Possibly one of the most scandalous decisions was when Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield drew in New York.
Peter Davies, writing for Sports Day, wrote: “It was meant to produce the undisputed champion of the world, but at Madison Square Garden the only matter clarified was that boxing remains mired in a cesspool of controversy and corruption. ‘Home-town decision’ doesn’t begin to describe what will surely go down as one of the worst decisions ever given in a fight of this magnitude?.
Some will say the split verdict awarded to Joe Louis when he fought Jersey Joe Walcott in December 1947 was even worse.
The Brown Bomber retained his title when Marty Monroe gave Louis nine rounds to six and Frank Forbes scored it eight rounds to six and one even. Referee Ruby Goldstein made Walcott the winner, seven to six and two even.
Even Louis thought he had lost. He tried to leave the ring immediately after the fight, but his handlers called him back.
Many fans also shook their heads after bouts between Julio Cesar Chavez and Pernell Whitaker, Marvin Hagler and Sugar Leonard and Oscar de la Hoya and Felix Trinidad.
South Africa has had its share of poor decisions. One of the worst in recent years was the split decision in favour of SA super-middleweight champion Andr? Thysse in his fight with Xolani Ngemtu.
OTHER DEBATABLE DECISIONS
Former Olympic Games gold medallist Joel Casamayor met Jose Armando Cruz for the interim WBC lightweight title at Madison Square Garden in New York on November 11 2007. The Cuban was knocked down in the first round and outboxed for the rest of the fight. But he won on a split decision.
Oscar De La Hoya moved up to middleweight to challenge WBO champion Felix Sturm in Las Vegas on June 5 2004. Sturm outpunched De La Hoya but scores were 115-113 on all cards ? for De La Hoya.
In Las Vegas on April 20 2002, Floyd Mayweather Jr moved into the lightweight division to fight Jose Luis Castillo for the WBC belt. Mayweather dominated at the start but Castillo picked up in the middle rounds and outworked Mayweather for the rest of the fight. The scores in favour of Mayweather were 115-111 on two cards and 116-111 on the third.
In Atlantic City on July 9 2011, former WBC middleweight champion Paul Williams took a beating from Erislandy Lara. But Williams won a majority decision: 116-114, 115-114 and 114-114.
Also in Atlantic City, on November 22 1997, 48-year-old George Foreman fought Shannon Briggs in a WBC heavyweight title eliminator. Foreman pounded Briggs with big shots throughout but two judges scored it for Briggs and the third judge had it a draw.
Amateur boxing at the Olympic Games has produced dozens of debatable decisions. In a match for the light-middleweight gold medal at the 1988 Games in Seoul, Park Si-hun of Korea beat American Roy Jones Jr. Jones landed 86 punches to Park?s 32. Park won 3-2. One judge was later reported as having said he side with Park because he felt bad about the local fighter being shut out in the final.
DO THE JUDGES DESERVE ALL THE BLAME?
One may ask: are the judges entirely to blame?
Judges are never applauded for a job well done, but are often accused of many sins, shortcomings and involvement in conspiracies when a decision goes in an unexpected direction.
There have been no reported cases of judges being paid off but it is well known that some promoters ask for certain judges to be appointed for certain fights.
So, can judges be influenced by promoters? Maybe. Some promoters allegedly wine and dine judges and insure their family members have good seats at tournaments.
Sometimes the problem lies with the spectators; not with the judges. Supporters are more easily influenced by media reports and commentators and are not trained to watch every round of a fight objectively. Judges are taught to concentrate to watch three minutes of every round.
It has been suggested that a system of full-time, well-paid judges be introduced. This will cut down on the number of judges and enable the best to make a career of it.
But judging a fight will always be subjective, and different people will always respond in different ways when they watch different types of fighters.
To find a scientific, electronic method of judging fights still seems impossible, but there is much to be said for more efficient rules to be applied more rigidly by all judges.
However, what happens in the ring will remain a matter of perception. Verdicts will be a matter of opinion for years to come. Which means some results will be debated and debatable as long as most present boxers, officials and reporters are alive.
