A slow, rather uninspiring year for boxing is ending with many interesting fighters on the shelf, with nothing scheduled. It ends with much speculation, and little confirmation. Other than a 3rd brawl with Alvarado-Rios, and the heavyweight title fight between Stiverne and Wilder, there isn't much to look forward to. Even Pascal v. Kovalev is in jeopardy, and I personally never think that fight will get made. Yet, the worst way to close was with bad decisions, and we saw 3 of them in one weekend. Tyson Cave was a legitimate victim, with a decision loss so awful, it is unparalleled since Tyrone Everett gave Alfredo Escalera a boxing lesson, and was robbed in his own hometown. Yet, bizarrely, Mauricio Herrera has become the poster boy for bad decision victims, and I'm not sure it's entirely accurate.
Mauricio Herrera may have been screwed twice in 2014, losing dubious decisions to both Danny Garcia and Jose Benavides, but let's tell the whole story. For those who do not watch ESPN, Shobox, etc. Herrera has been involved in a number of questionable calls, and not always on the losing side. He seems to be relishing the sympathy vote, but ask Mike Dallas and Cleotis Pendarvis about fair scoring. Both men seemed to do enough to get the decision over Herrera, yet both were denied. Many argue that Provodnikov was unlucky with the judges in his bout with Herrera.
I happen to think all 3 of Provo's losses were legit, but all 3 were his only close fights, and they all went against him. maybe he should be getting the sympathy that Herrera is getting. Herrera does have two entirely legitimate losses to Karim Mayfield and Mike Alvarado... two fighters who have gone on to fail at the higher levels. Provodnikov only has 3 close ones against Bradley, Herrera, and Algieri. he ahs been relegated to fighting has-beens back home in Russia as a reward, while Herrera was handed a belt, and is still in line for a big fight. Herrera's first loss, to Mike Anchondo was also a screw job, too... so maybe this just happens when Herrera fights.
Max Kellerman made a very good point about the bad decision usually following the money, but he also saw an example of the opposite happening, in the very next fight. It's true that the bulk of bad decisions are the result of corruption. This corruption is usually made in the interest of advancing the house fighter, or protecting the draw. The judges are either outright bought, or the implication is handed down that the promoter will never hire a judge again, if the score does not end favorably. Countless examples of judges who play ball being "rewarded" despite bad scores can be found throughout boxing history. It is nothing new, and until massive judging reform happens, it will continue.
However, sometimes judges are just wrong. Tim Bradley certainly sells more tickets than Diego Chaves, and yet, it was he who was on the short end of a lousy draw. Could this have been karma for the close ones (and really bad one) he has received throughout his career? Could the judges have been fooled by the swelling. Julie Lederman's scorecard 116-112 for Chaves was bizarre, but she agreed with at least one other judge in every round she scored, and has a great judging record. She certainly did not need to kiss ass to any promoters. Nope. It just seems that she got one wrong, on a night when the other two were not on their game either.
Chris Strait
www.convictedartist.com
