The World Series of Arbitrary Decisions?

If you asked a mainstream boxing guy how he feels about traveling to an opponent’s hometown, much less his home country, they’d likely say “Ain’t gonna happen unless you pay in the millions. It’s nothing but asking for trouble.”

On Wednesday, the WSB’s Appeals Panel agreed and at the same time, arguably ended any good will they might have built up with boxing fans in the US who are as skeptical as any fans in the world. How? They overturned two decisions for the Matadors from a card held in Hollywood, CA on December 4, 2011. This decision changed the best of five fights card from a 4:1 Matadors victory to a 3:2 victory for the Moscow Dynamo. The home loss has essentially ended the playoff hopes of the Matadors who had yet to win on the road but were undefeated at home. The fighters, fresh off a win this past week against the previously undefeated Milano Thunder, went from elation to dejection in a matter of days. Sources tell me the team, who is keeping their statements to themselves, is unhappy to say the least. “Outraged” might be a better word.

In a sport where all you do is take punishment, the Matador fighters, who do make a salary plus “win bonuses,” have road games in Moscow and Bangkok plus a home match remaining. But with no chance at the playoffs and a win seemingly an Appeals Panel ruling away from being an arbitrary loss, the questions remains besides money, what are these men risking their health for? Prizefighters fight and contracts should be honored but fair play must also be observed.

I was at the fights that night as I have been for all but one Matadors match. It was arguably the roughest night of fights I have attended in close to 7 years as a boxing writer. I’ve seen boring fights and cards but never a card so rife with fouls. The Moscow fighters, who appeared to be physically more mature than the Matadors, were all about rough tactics. They held and head butt. I saw some elbows and more than a few near tackles and a trip or two. It was at times, by some standards, barely boxing.

The first fight of the night was also the first overturned. This is what I wrote in my fight report following the bout:

“Bakersfield’s 18 year old Bantamweight Edwin Sandoval took on the aggressive and very strong looking Vladimir Nikitin. From the get go, Nikitin laid out a jab and right hand then clinched. Sandoval looked like he was getting mugged as he tried to box and instead repeatedly got bum rushed by Nikitin. The Russian fighter would lose two points for rough tactics. At the bout’s end, Nikitin almost was disqualified for hitting very late after the bell.”

The judges who worked all five fights that night scored the fight as follows: Sergio Caiz had it 47-46 Sandoval. Judge
David Mendoza scored it 48-45 for Nikitin and Pat Connolly broke the tie with a 47-46 score for Sandoval. Admittedly, this was a tough fight to score. If you take away the two very well deserved point deductions for rough tactics administered by referee Pat Russell, by all accounts one of the best refs in the world and certainly in the State of California, Nikitin wins. The problem is he fouled excessively. Had he been disqualified for a very late after the final bell that saw both men go at it near the bell, Sandoval move away, Nikitin chase him down a step and unload a hook that landed flush, I would have been fine with it.

That said, at the time, I felt that the Russian fighter won the fight but lost the match due to the point deductions. Perhaps he was able to pull out three rounds but losing two points in a fight that was rough and hard to score for lack of clean shots that didn’t have a clinch or head butt behind them did not help his case. But this was not the worst decision I have ever seen. However, had the WSB only reversed this decision, I would not have much of a problem. Instead, they reversed another fight as well.

Again from my report:

“Lightweight Matador Raynell Williams out of Ohio squared off for another grapple-fest with Adlan Abdurashidov. A slick boxer, Williams was also taken out of his game plan by the Russian fighter’s aggressive come forward attack.

“I felt good but it was kind of difficult because he was really rough,” said Williams after. “As the fight went on I got stronger and a little smarter in there. But it all comes from experience.”

An Olympic hopeful as well, Williams is a second year WSB fighter with a speed based style. Against the physical Dynamo fighter, Williams was crowded much of the fight. But he found a way to get off some clean shots and distance here and there. Still, the fight appeared to be the Russian’s but alas the judges had it the other way. With scores of 49-46 twice and 48-47 for Williams, Abdurashidov became absolutely incensed and refused to leave the ring stating “I won that fight” to anyone who listen. After about five minutes and a threat of a formal protest and boycott of the remaining three fights, the Dynamo went back into action.”

Now once again, I felt it was a close fight that the home fighter came away with. Was an outright robbery? No. Was it a close fight? Yes. Was it as rough as the first fight? Absolutely.

What is worse is that Williams, according to the WSB, had his close score changed to a 50-45. According to the expert WSB panel, Williams did not win a round. I could argue for an Abdurashidov win but a shutout? No way.

All of this opens up a lot of questions.

Why is it that three unknown judges from the WSB, which is a subsidiary of AIBA (Amateur International Boxing Association) in conjunction with the IOC (International Olympic Committee) were allowed to randomly overturn a professional judges’ decision? What is more, with TV angles giving a somewhat slanted view of any fight, how were these officials, off the FoxSportsWest broadcast, able to see the tough to score fights better than three experienced judges who were ringside? Who is on this panel? How many pro fights have they scored? Or are they judges trained under the computerized scoring system?

I am still waiting for an answer to those. League officials informed they have 9 hour time difference and so once the appropriate person receives my questions, you will receive my answers.

From what I understand, three fights from that night were looked at. Beyond the first two bouts, the heavyweight fight between Matador David Imoesiri who “took a decision over Vitaly Kudukhov in an awkward fight that featured even more WWE action” was also reviewed. In this case, the fight was ruled a draw live with a WSB official breaking the tie in favor of Imoesiri. There are no draws in the WSB and in the case of a local commission scoring one, the WSB official assigned to the fight breaks it. The WSB decided to uphold their own officials’ decision.

In essence, the WSB has acted like the WBC or any other sanctioning body. They are part of the sport but as a sanctioning body, they can choose to act independent of logic, reason, or fair play. Bottom line, it is their money they are investing and because of that, they get to make the rules.

But here is yet another problem: I have been watching the Matadors’ fights overseas on the WSB’s online channel. I can count five fights that went against the Matadors on the road that were just as clear wins that were scored losses. Leonid Malkov lost a close one in Milan. Eric Fowler did the same in India. On the same card, Russell Lamour dropped a split decision. Joet Gonzalez also lost a close split decision (something most boxing fans would call a win on the road) to the Astana Arlans and Sean Turner had a close one go the other way in Italy. In fact, observing the WSB this year, it appears that road teams seem to be doing poorly in general. Perhaps this is cultural. Every time I spoke with Matadors’ coach Manny Robles this year following a road loss, he smiled, said “Hey, that’s boxing” and didn’t dwell on what he could not control. The other WSB franchises could learn much from this man.

In their press release, The WSB said that they had first received a protest from the Astana Arlans regarding two bouts, a bantamweight bout and a heavyweight fight. Neither fight needed to be protested in my opinion. On that night, both fighters needed wins and they went out and got them. While the WSB did not reverse those decisions, they did question the judging and officiating. If this scribe had to question anything, it was why the bantamweight Arlan was allowed to hold so much.

Judging in the amateurs and the pros are two very different things. In the pros, clean punching, effective aggression, defense and ring generalship are the criteria. Most importantly, damaging punches that land cleanly outweigh, or should, sloppy volume. Amateur scoring is much different. Amateur scoring is computerized with five judges pressing a button (red or blue for either fighter). Every time a punch lands, the judges press the button of the fighter who landed it. The catch is three of the judges have to hit the button at the same time for it to register and the fighter to receive his point.

As a result, amateur scoring has become such a mess that a need for an organization like the WSB has arisen. In my time covering this sport, often have I heard from fighters who say that because they have a “pro style”, they lost a certain amateur fight. Or worse, because of AIBA/IOC politics, they lost a fight.

From a September interview conducted by the DailyMirror.co.uk with James Degale “[Bad decisions] used to happen a lot in Eastern Europe. I remember winning fights easily and getting back to the corner and being told I had lost the round or it was scored even. There were a few dodgy decisions at the last Olympics involving some of the Chinese boxers. They hadn’t been into boxing long and they ended up with two gold medals. This needs to be cleared up.”

Ultimately, scoring a fight is like judging art. There are criteria but then there also intangibles and any outside force can distract or sway a judges’ view of a bout; for example, viewing a fight with the objective of deciding if it was judged poorly or not.

With the WSB and amateur boxing in transition to a more pro-oriented style, growing pains will happen. At the same time, fair play, transparency, and rules that fall within normal boxing practices should be observed.

One reason the panel gave for overturning the decisions was that the judging was suspect and the referees’ actions were questionable. Another reason was that after reviewing the filed protests, the WSB asked that none of the officials working the cards in question be allowed to work this week’s Thunder vs. Matadors match. When officials were in fact assigned, the WSB decided to go forward with overturning the decision.

“On learning that some Referees & Judges who had officiated in the challenged bouts were still appointed for the most recent match against the Dolce & Gabbana Milano Thunder (Week 7 on 22 January 2012), the result of which WSB has also been appealed against by the Milano Thunder Team, WSB decided today to apply the Appeal Panel’s decision on the LA Matadors vs. Dynamo Moscow match,” said their official statement.

This is a rather curious decision. In a way, the decision can be interpreted as an assumption of some kind of collusion on the part of the team and the California Commission. In essence, because the CSAC did not comply with their request, the two players were punished.

As for why the request regarding the officials, sent on December 20, 2 days before the Italy-L.A. match, was not honored, California State Athletic Director George Dodd said “We received a protest about the officials but my assignments were already made,” Dodd said. “Unless there is cause, I don’t usually change my officials. The California officials we used were qualified to do this type of event. Again, you have an outside entity who decides to do what they do whether it is change the bouts decision or not. So it is up to them.”

Contrary to what the WSB Appeals Panel thinks or decided, not getting the officials you want is actually not one of the four criteria for overturning a bout’s decision in California. In fact, they are as follows:

368. Change Of Decision.

(a) A decision rendered at the termination of any boxing contest is final and shall
not be changed unless following the rendition of a decision the commission determines
that any one of the following occurred:

(1) There was collusion affecting the result of any contest;
(2) The compilation of the scorecard of the judges, and the referee when used as a
judge, shows an error which would mean that the decision was given to the wrong boxer;
(3) There was a violation of the laws or rules and regulations governing boxing which affected the result of any contest.
(4) The winner of a bout tested positive immediately after the bout for a substance
listed in Rule 303©.

Beyond this anonymous panel’s appeal, I fail to see where they proved any of those criteria. The ref’s followed the rules and in fact, showed some leeway in not disqualifying Nikitin and allowing the Russian fighter’s to maul and clinch, which appeared to be a team tactic. As far as I know, the cards were added up correctly and no one tested positive for a performance enhancing drug. That leaves collusion, arguably the most serious accusation you can level at a boxing official. The problem the WSB would face if they answered to anyone but themselves is that they have not proven any collusion existed.

“Collusion where two officials got together and said ‘This is the team we wanted to win,” Dodd told Maxboxing.com Wednesday, “it has to be proven influence that is causing the officials to do what they do.”

To date, that has not been proven and I do not expect it to be.

Dodd did offer a ray of light to the newly defeated fighters. Because the WSB is a semi-pro league, California counts the wins and losses of WSB fighters against their pro record. While the WSB panel took away the wins, California will not.

“They can change their decision but it doesn’t change the outcome for us,” Dodd said. “They are viewed as professional fighters so the fights count against their record. How the WSB marks them down, that is their own decision. Internally, [The WSB] can choose to do what they want to do but we don’t recognize that.

Supposition and opinion have cost these fighters a chance to compete in the playoffs. In no other sport but boxing can I recall a contest’s decision overturned because a panel decided they did not like the officiating or the officials assigned to a future contest. In only two cases that I am aware has an outside sanctioning body overturned a decision before meeting with local commission officials. That of course was the Chad Dawson vs. Bernard Hopkins technical knockout that was ruled a No Contest first by the WBC and then later the CSAC. The other was a 2008 fight between Humberto Soto vs. Francisco Lorenzo in Las Vegas. Soto was disqualified when referee Joe Cortez decided that Lorenzo was hit while on the canvas and thus could not continue. The World Boxing Council (WBC) did not agree and refused to award the title to Lorenzo.

And now the WSB’s Wednesday decision.

“The WBC and WSB did it and they can choose to run their organization how they want to run it,” said Dodd. “Had they called the fights a no contest and we went back and reviewed it and did not agree, it would remain on their professional records that way. We try and work with the sanctioning body but they will do what they feel is best for their organization not maybe what is best overall for boxing.”

Truer words were rarely spoken.

Stay tuned for more.