Opinion | Dec 10 2014

Mickey Vann: When three judges score the bout similarly, like Floyd Mayweather-Jose Luis Castillo I, there should be no controversy

The judges concentrate on the fight without distraction whereas the media do not, writes Mickey Vann
Mayweather-Castillo1

I NOTICED in last week’s Boxing News Spike O’Sullivan calling out Chris Eubank Jnr.

After Spike’s demolition of Anthony Fitzgerald, the company he has shared a ring with, and with a 99 per cent success rate I would pay to see it and if it was in Dublin – a few thousand others would to.
I also read with interest Nigel Collins’ column. He was talking about Floyd Mayweather Jnr and Jose Luis Castillo in their 2002 fight when he says the three judges gave unrealistic scores of 116-111, and 115-111 twice. He goes on to validate his point by referencing Compubox stats that recorded Castillo landing 46 more punches than his opponent. Well, for a start, if those 46 extra punches did not land on the scoring target then they aren’t worth the ink used to write the article. The judges’ totals – an Asian, a Briton (namely John Keane who has been and is one of the best judges of a fight in the country) and an American – were almost identical, so please tell me how this scoring was unrealistic when all three judges from three different continents with such a close differential in scoring are wrong. I would rather take the word of the three experienced judges, sat with total concentration on the job in hand, than a reporter sat at least another three yards away, writing his notes, listening to the opinions of his other media pals each side of him, and worrying if he is going to meet his deadline.

If a fighter lands 600 punches during a fight, and 400 are on target he is going to get the verdict over a fighter who lands 646 punches but only 300 are on target – it’s common sense unless the writer doesn’t know what the target area is. I can understand there being controversy over scoring when there is maybe six rounds difference in the scoring and a 2-to-1 majority. But to have three judges score so close, I think Nigel had an off night when he wrote the article, not the judges.