Howard Goldberg says it’s time for Boxing SA to toughen up on ring officials because the standard of refereeing, but mostly judging, has decreased alarmingly.
The former referee and judge, with more than 300 title fights, serves the WBF as its president.
He said he has done more than a dozen referees’ and judges’ seminars worldwide. Of late, many SA title fights have been reviewed due to dubious scoring.
There are lots of good ring officials and there are many who are not competent enough … They should be trained properly
— Howard Goldberg
That process is part of the comprehensive Boxing Regulations of 2004, which were enacted on March 26 2004, under the South African Boxing Act, 2001.
The outcome of that process has no bearing on the initial verdict.
Two weekends ago, a judge’s scoring in a closely contested 12-rounder between Ndabezinhle Phiri and Jackson Chauke set tongues wagging.
That judge’s scoring of 117-110 has borne a lot of criticism from all and sundry.
Other scores were 115-112 and 114-113 in favour of Phiri.
“Two judges had Phiri winning by two points and a one-point margin, respectively, and the other one has Chauke losing by seven points… what do you call that?” asked Goldberg.
“There are lots of good ring officials and there are many who are not competent enough … They should be trained properly.
“BSA must have a panel that continually monitors and grades officials … elevate those that are doing well and drop those who don’t perform according to the standard.”
Goldberg said he has provided the CEO (Tsholofelo Lejaka) with one of the training manuals, which would certainly benefit the officials.
Key challenges of boxing judging are:
The main criteria are:
Clean and effective punching: Landing the knuckle part of the glove on the scoring area with force. A single powerful punch that wobbles an opponent is often more valuable than multiple light jabs, but determining the impact in real-time is challenging.Effective aggression: Aggression must be “effective” (landing scoring blows), not just a fighter moving forward wildly. A judge must discern the difference.Ring generalship: This refers to controlling the pace, position and style of the fight. It is a very subtle factor that can be interpreted differently by judges.Defence: A boxer’s ability to avoid punches is also a scoring component, but fans and judges sometimes undervalue defensive skill.Subjectivity of criteria: While judges use established criteria, the interpretation of these criteria is subjective. Vantage point: Judges are seated at different sides of the ring, giving them unique, sometimes obstructed, views of the action.Concentration: A judge must maintain intense, undivided concentration for the entire fight, a mentally demanding task for 12 rounds.Distraction: Unlike commentators or fans, judges must score silently and without distraction (no talking, no looking at phones, etc.) to ensure accuracy.
The 10-point must system: This system requires a winner for each round (usually 10-9) unless it’s a clear draw (10-10) or involves knockdowns/fouls (10-8, 10-7, etc.).
The need to pick a winner in a very close round, even by a slender margin, can lead to score variations across the three judges.
Ultimately, judging a boxing match requires significant experience, integrity, and deep knowledge of the sport’s nuances to accurately apply the subjective scoring criteria under pressure.
Sowetan