Johnny Ortiz, a member of the World Boxing Hall of Fame board of directors and a former co-owner of the legendary Main St. Gym, has impeccable credentials. He has been in boxing since he was nine years old, first as a fighter and then as a trainer and manager.
After Bernard “The Executioner” Hopkins lost his title to Jermain Taylor simply because judge Duane Ford scored the last round, which was decisively won by Hopkins for Taylor instead, Ortiz said: “The reason we are subjected to bad decisions in boxing is the fact that we have certain judges, who have never set foot inside a boxing ring, they have no clue as to what they are watching or what they should be looking for.”
American judge Danny Nelson effectively reinforced what Ortiz said. A former amateur in the 1950s and who also fought as a pro for a short while, Nelson had Z Gorres the winner, 115-111, despite the two-point deduction slapped on the Filipino by referee Samuel Viruet—one in the 10th and the other in the crucial 12th round—for holding. Without the two-point deduction, Nelson would have had Gorres the winner over Fernando Montiel by a lopsided 117-111 margin, which meant he had the Filipino winning nine of the 12 rounds. Viva Sports/Standard Today had Gorres winning eight rounds to four for a 114- 112 scorecard.
Viruet, who excitedly jumped in with Montiel and his handlers after the fight for a victory photo session and at times spoke to the champion during the fight in Spanish, came under relentless attack for deducting a point from Gorres in the crucial stages of the battle—the 10th and 12th rounds—which clearly hurt the Filipino. Viruet totally disregarded the accepted practice of warning a fighter once or even twice before deducting a point for continued violations. Even Manny Pacquiao assailed Viruet’s action.
In sharp contrast, when Montiel spat out his mouthpiece in Round 2 after Gorres caught him with a great combination, Viruet gave him a WARNING. He failed to extend the same privilege to Gorres.
Well-known boxing writer Scott Mallon, who told us he couldn’t understand the decision in the Gorres-Montiel fight and more so the action of Viruet, noted that when Viruet refereed the World Boxing Organization bantamweight title defense of Thailand’s Ratanachai Sor Vorapin against Mauricio Martinez in 2005 in Phuket, he “issued two warnings to Sor Vorapin for holding and hitting but Vorapin continued to do so unabated.”
Mallon reported that the Martinez’s corner was “livid, screaming at the referee to take a point. Much to their dismay, no point was taken.”
We wonder whether Viruet or the WBO, for that matter, would dare try to explain the blatant double standard.
Hard-hitting columnist Recah Trinidad noted that “just like everybody out there at the overfilled stands, [Tony] Aldeguer could’ve spat at the cheating ref. Viruet actually deserved a can of slum garbage dumped over his dirty head. He had just completed one of the biggest robberies in a world championship.”
Well-known Japanese matchmaker, manager and media man Joe Koizumi, in an address to World Boxing Association officials at their convention in Tokyo last year, spoke about the issue of referees and point deductions. Koizumi pointed out that according to international standards in the past, a referee “gives a warning TWICE and deducts a point at the THIRD violation,” although it was prone to abuse by some fighters including Wilfredo Gomez, who repeated the violation twice and no more than that.
“The referee had better not deduct a point at the first violation of a boxer without giving him a warning beforehand. It is because we have to re-evaluate the importance of one point in boxing, which may decide the winner of a close fight,” opined Koizumi.
Koizumi made some sound suggestions—that the referee warn the boxer at least once and then he should clearly give a concrete warning “if you do it again minus one point, OK?”
Only in the case of an evident and dangerous violation of the rules should a point be deducted without warning, said Koizumi.
Widely read boxing writer Ace Freeman of the Fight Fan Web site described the point deductions as “atrocious calls.”
“Point deductions for holding are genuinely reserved for clinch-filled contests, when several warnings are issued,” said Freeman, who watched a tape of the fight and added he didn’t notice any warning being given Gorres prior to the first deduction in the 10th round—although it’s possible he did get one—but the point is he did not deserve one in any way shape or form.
Freeman termed the point deduction in the 12th and final round “a disgrace,” and one that should be the subject of some kind of review. He noted that while there was “mild clinching going on, it was not even clear, who was holding who.”
“A very suspect series of events on referee Samuel Viruet’s part that effectively cost Gorres a majority decision win. At the end of the day, this was a fairly easy fight to score for Gorres and without the confusion added by Viruet, it’s difficult to fathom how Raul Caiz managed to have Montiel winning seven rounds,” said Freeman.
The decision that cost Gorres a well-deserved world title was roundly condemned by every single boxing writer—local and foreign—at ringside in Cebu. It was particularly painful because we have watched Gorres through the years upclose and personal and have conceded that while he may not have the awesome punching power of Pacquiao or even of Rey “Boom Boom” Bautista and may be relegated to the second level when it comes to the sheer charisma of The Pacman and Boom Boom, he does have a relatively quiet disposition and an attraction of his own.
He is, to those who know the essentials of the sport, a classic boxer in the mould of one who epitomizes the qualities associated with the sweet science. Unfortunately, it seems the growing use of the word “fighter” instead of “boxer” has driven many fight fans to look at those in the mould of Gorres, former world super flyweight champion Gerry Pe?alosa and such renowned champions as Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Winky Wright as inferior to the aggressive, hard-hitting fighters such as Jermain Taylor, Miguel Cotto, Joan Guzman, Marco Antonio Barrera, Vic Darchinyan and others like them.
This is where we get an insight into Chuck Giampa, who is based in Las Vegas. He belongs to a group of judges who lean toward favoring aggression and power shots over nifty jabs, great footwork and the ability to slip punches. It’s partly due to what former Nevada State Athletic Commission executive director Marc Ratner once said when asked whether he was concerned about judges turning in different scorecards. Ratner said different judges had their own philosophies when it comes to scoring.
As Ortiz said: “What the hell does that mean? Either a fighter wins a round or he doesn’t. What does the judge’s philosophy have to do with it?”
It simply means that because boxing has, for sometime now, been on the ropes in the United States in particular, and the more brutal action-packed mixed martial arts has continued to erode the following for boxing, people in Las Vegas have encouraged judges to give aggression a plus, many times at the expense of sheer skill and ring generalship.
When former HBO top executive and boxing man Lou Di Bella was recently asked whether he thought there was a problem with judging right now, his answer was “of course there is. The judging is disgraceful.”
The heist in the “Moment of Truth” proved it beyond belief.
