Time for British boxing to climb out of the Stone Age

British heavweight John McDermott tries in vain to explain how referee Terry O'Conner awarded the decision to Tyson Fury in their September fight. His promoter Frank Maloney (left) probably thinks explaining quantum physics would be easier.

Imagine this scenario: It’s a prime-time matchup in the NBA, with a Los Angeles Lakers-Cleveland Cavaliers tilt in Staples Center (the Lakers’ home arena) that has everyone buzzing. It’s a nip-and-tuck affair with Kobe Bryant and LeBron James trading highlight reel moves. At the buzzer, Daniel Gibson of the Cavs hits a 3-pointer, tying the score at 103-103 at the end of regulation. Time to go to the judges to render a decision on which team has won the game. With a groan from the crowd, the head referee raises James’ hand, signifying a Cavaliers’ victory.

Later, all three officials are talking about the game. “Well, I hope I got that one right,” says the head referee. “I seemed to be working baseline most of the night, so I didn’t see how the guards played all that much.” The second referee chimes in. “Wow, that’s what surprised me, then, because Derek Fisher was excellent. He must have had 20 tonight.”

“Really?” the head referee says. “I was too busy looking at Shaq dominating the paint to notice all that, I guess.”

“Yes, and did you see Kobe hit a bunch of shots over Lebron James, too?” says the third official. “I was totally surprised it was so one-sided.”

The head referee looks at the other two. “Boy, I wish all three of us could have had votes. Looks like the Lakers would have won the game otherwise. I don’t know how I’m supposed to pay attention to everything on the court when my job requires me to officiate only certain pieces of it. This is ridiculous.”

Sound silly? Well, in Britain, this scenario plays itself out in hundreds of fights every year. In the case of September 11th’s John McDermott fight with rising British heavyweight Tyson Fury, it’s clear to see why that needs to change.

As nearest that can be determined, the British Boxing Board Of Control (BBBofC) is the only commission in the world that allows referees to be the sole arbiters of fights (if the fight is governed by another sanctioning body, however, the traditional three-judge system is used). This has been going on since the formation of the BBBofC in 1919, and with it has come numerous controversies and questionable decisions.

In the case of the McDermott-Fury fight, the veteran McDermott battered the much-hyped Fury around the ring for ten rounds, out landing the young heavyweight 114-104. McDermott’s 34% connect rate overshadowed the mere 18% displayed by Fury. The majority of Fury’s connects, however, were in the first four rounds, when the bout was much more competitive. From round five on, McDermott was landing the far more telling blows, and Fury’s face looked like it had been blown up with helium by fight’s end. Nearly everyone in Essex’ Brentwood Centre figured that McDermott finally got the big victory he had been starving for in his somewhat underachieving career.

Then, only a second after the final bell rang, referee Terry O’Connor raised Fury’s hand, as if it had been obvious all along who the winner was. Furthermore, O’Conner had inexplicably turned in a 98-92 scorecard for Fury, when the closest press row score had been a draw. Expectedly, McDermott’s camp went nuts, with his promoter Frank Maloney calling for an investigation (he even had a heart attack during the fight!). As of this writing, the BBBofC has granted McDermott a rematch due to the controversy.

The problem with all this is that if there had been three judges, the result likely wouldn’t have happened. The reason the three-judge system evolved in the first place was in case there was a hometown judge or a bad scorecard was submitted. The two judges would overrule the third. To further the objectivity, the judges were then seated on different sides of the ring. Although bad decisions happen in boxing all the time, it’s much harder to have two or three judges screw it all up than a single referee.

The logic of having a referee score a fight is spurious at best, anyway. There are many referees who also judge in the United States, but they either do one or the other. This is ostensibly because it’s too difficult to do both at the same time. As in the NBA scenario, think of the numerous things a referee has to think about during a fight; health of the fighter, low blows, holding, cuts, equipment and canvas conditions, etc. All this, and the referee is supposed to keep track of landed punches? How many times has a referee missed a knockdown call or low blow because he or she was out of position? Extrapolating that out, how many punches might a referee miss? A boxing referee has too much to worry about without having that extra duty.

One must also take into account if a corner or referee has a grudge or is angered by a fighter during a fight, such as when a corner argues with a referee. In this case, O’Conner had lost to McDermott’s dad as a professional. While no one thinks there was any impropriety for that reason, if O’Conner had decided to stick it to his conqueror’s son, there would be no other judges to overrule that decision. If O’Conner had given Fury those rounds because he didn’t particularly like the color of McDermott’s trunks, there would be nothing to stop him.

Let’s put it this way: The reason wooden tennis racquets are no longer used is because they’re obsolete; composite racquets are much better now. The BBBofC needs get with the times and start using a three-judge system like everyone else; it may not be a perfect system, but it’s the best there is right now. Bad decisions are too frequent in the fight game already; there’s no reason to heighten that chance by having a single referee with tons of other duties also determine the winner.