THREE ISN'T A CROWD

It’s a funny thing: I’ve been covering boxing for 25 years, and I’m secure in my opinions. Still, when I see a fight differently from the judge(s), I seek confirmation. In that sense, perhaps I’m only human.

On 17 July, at the Goresbrook Leisure Centre in Dagenham, I analysed the David Barnes-Jimmy Vincent British welterweight title fight for the American programme “ShoBox.” After 12 rounds, Barnes’s late rally had done nothing to change my mind: the ever-charging Vincent had won comfortably, by three points on my card.

After referee (and sole judge) John Keane raised the hand of Barnes (his tally was 115-114), I released a sigh. Then I checked the lenses of my glasses, which were perfectly clear. Then I checked my friends at ringside: Steve Bunce had Vincent well ahead. So did Bob Mee.

My blow-by-blow partner, Nick Charles, thought Vincent had clearly won.

Everyone in the production truck thought Vincent had won convincingly. So did most of the fans.

Later that night, upon returning to my hotel room, I caught part of the rebroadcast on Sky. The presenters all thought it had been a robbery. Barry McGuigan seemed angry enough to resume his career.

In time, the outrage focused on the British Boxing Board of Control’s policy of employing the referee as sole judge. (For what it’s worth, the co-main event, Graham Earl’s points win over defending domestic lightweight champion Bobby Vanzie, was also disputed.) In the USA and everywhere else, and in the world title fights of the alphabet organisations, the referee was relieved of his scoring responsibility several years ago.

For an American perspective on this curiously British situation, here are several opinions on what has again become a hot subject.

Steve Smoger (New Jersey-based referee): “With the accent on safety, I’m so focused on the welfare of the fighters that I couldn’t concentrate on scoring. Because my focus is as it is, there are times when, unless a round is one-sided, I have no idea who won it. The concentration level needed to administer the rules would make it a difficult task to score a fight.

“In a recent fight [the cruiserweight bout between Dale Brown and Rich LaMontagne on 1 August], I spent the entire minute working with LaMontagne. His left eye had swelling and three cuts. I was conferring with the doctor and conferring with LaMontagne’s corner. Exactly when would I have scored the round?

“We’re in the age of specialisation, and if specialisation was ever needed, it’s in the pro boxing industry.”

Frank Garza (Michigan-based referee): “To allow one person to judge is wrong. The question of partiality is greater. When you have three judges, the issue of partiality is lowered. As far as the referee being one of the scoring officials, back when they were trained to do that … I have no problem with that.”

Marc Ratner (executive director, Nevada State Athletic Commission): “My personal opinion — and not necessarily the opinion of the Nevada commission — is that boxing is the only sport where a referee can possibly make a life-or-death decision. For all that to be riding, having to worry about who is winning a round is just a burden. Let the referee ref the fight.

“And as far as having only one judge, boxing is a sport of angles and you need three different views. Sometimes a fighter’s back is to you and you don’t see much.”

Joe Cortez (Nevada-based referee): “If you call Arthur Mercante, he’ll tell you referees should score.

“I had no problems refereeing and scoring at the same time. However, when there were some ring deaths, the WBC was the first to take away the ref from scoring. The thinking was we shouldn’t do the two things simultaneously.

“First and foremost is the safety of the fighters, and if the referee’s focus was being taken away [because of his responsibility to score], I have no problem with the [no-scoring] rule being put in place. If we have three qualified judges looking for the proper criteria, it’s fine.

“Some people can’t walk and talk on a cell phone at the same time. I can, but some people just stop walking. Some people can’t do two things at the same time, and some refs may have trouble scoring and refereeing. We can’t risk somebody’s life.”

Arthur Mercante (New York-based referee and the dean of American refs who worked his first pro bout in 1954): “I believe the referee has the best vantage point. If he does his job properly and positions himself properly, he can almost feel the impact of the punches.

“When the WBC changed the rule, I said they were emasculating the referees by taking away the power of the vote. Mr [Jose] Sulaiman said to me: ‘Not all refs can do what you do; you’re one of a kind.’ I will say that today there are so many incompetent referees, and in those cases, it’s better that they’re not scoring. But I still think it should be two judges and the referee scoring the fight.

“As for the referee being the only one to score, I don’t care for that. It puts a lot of pressure on him.”

Robert Byrd (Nevada-based referee; Byrd’s wife, Adalaide Byrd, is a licensed Nevada boxing judge): “When I first started, referees did score fights. I was one of those who was very happy when they decided to go with three judges. The referee’s primary focus should be the safety of the fighters. There’s enough to do. A lot of times you get so caught up in the heat of the fight that you forget there were two knockdowns.

“I’m very, very strongly in favour of the three-judge system. It gives better opportunities to the fighters.”

Tom Kaczmarek (New Jersey-based judge):“When I boxed in the ‘40s in New Jersey and New England, only the referee scored. In the ‘80s, they relieved the referee of that responsibility for two reasons: One, the referees now could devote their entire attention and focus to what was happening in the ring regarding safety, rules, etc. Two, scoring also takes 100 percent of your concentration. You can’t do both.

“I’ve talked to several U.S. referees who would still like to be scoring. I disagree with them.”

Greg Sirb (executive director, Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission): “I think the system [with referees as sole judges] is antiquated. The referee probably has the best view of anybody, but his concern should be the safety of the fighters, not who’s winning the round. It’s asking far too much for a referee to do both.

“As far as the referee as the sole judge, one person may like a puncher over a boxer. He might let personalities come into play. Or he just might have a bad night. Putting all your eggs in one basket isn’t a good idea.”

Ron Scott Stevens (chairman, New York State Athletic Commission): “The three-judge system should be implemented throughout the world. The referee is far too busy to concentrate on scoring. His sole issues should be fair play and the health and safety of the fighters. And it’s not fair to the fighters, who deserve the referee’s sole attention.

“I’m curious as to why [the British Boxing Board of Control] hasn’t implemented the other system, and how they can defend it. I wonder what their points would be. I don’t think they could make an argument that would defeat the thinking behind the three-judge system.”