JUDGING REFORM

williams-vs-lara In the wake of the obviously bad decision rendered in the Paul Williams vs. Erislandy Lara match, I will offer two opinions right away. First off, as Max Kellerman pointed out, a distinction needs to be offered between a decision that is questionable, and one that is outrageously bad. For example, Devon Alexander vs. Lucas Matthysse was debatable. Williams vs. Lara was robbery. Lennox Lewis vs. Ray Mercer was debatable. Lennox Lewis vs. Holyfield 1 was robbery. Get it? Ok, now we can move on.

There is a certain level of idiocy that is not possible from a rational human beaing. Therefore, to assume that someone with eyes, and the slightest clue as to what they were looking at could have called it the way it ended, is ridiculous. Reasonable doubt is under assault everywhere. After the joke of a trial for Casey Anthony, we must keep in perspective that miscarriages of boxing justice are not so important, but there is a parallel. Reasonable doubt begins with the word “reason”.

We must assume the majority of people in the world are sane, therefore when you stand against 90% of the opinions, you better have a track record of genius and foresight on your side, or else you are likely wrong. The fact that all three judges in ther Williams – Lara farce were inexperienced, and that Goossen is already dodging the rematch question is just extra proof. The real first proof is that only 3 people didn’t think Erislandy Lara won that fight, and those were the 3 judges. Wake up people. They were bought, plain and simple.

How do we fix this? I say the same thing to that question that I say to my wife when she wonders why our daughter keeps misbehaving. People don’t give a damn if you are “outraged” at what they do. If they are corrupt enough to commit these crimes, they don’t care what you think. They are like children… sociopathic in nature. Therefore you must make it about them, and saving their own necks. Permanently ban them, and this nonsense will stop.

Also, do not allow promoters to have a say in this decision, or to pay the judges salaries. Pay into a fund, which is distributed by the state athletic commission. I know republicans have done a great job demonizing any government involvement, instead stating that privatization in the answer, but as the last 31 years have conclusively proven, the only thing privatization guarantees is that the top 1% maintains all control, and do not have the wisdom, maturity, and heart to handle that responsibility fairly.

The other answer is to completely modify judging. Press row members are at least as qualified, if not more so, to judge a boxing match. Poll 15 of them, pick which ones out of a hat, and do not announce which ones until the conclusion. Perhaps you will only have 5 for smaller cards, but it’s still better than only 3, and knowing ahead of time. Giving this many opinions will almost guarantee the right man gets the nod, and hiding it, until a random drawing prevents corruption. This is a starting point, but we must be willing to go this far if we are to invoke reral change. As long as there is no punishment, there will eb no reform. That is the language people speak. The corrupt influences of boxing are sticking their chins out and asking, “what are you gonna do about it?” We are being pressured for an answer. “Throw out the system, and fire your ass” should be that answer!

Chris Strait
www.convictedartist.com