EARLIER this week WBA President Gilberto Mendoza moved to shed light on the process of judging fights and what happens when a controversial decision arises.
Poor judging has long been a bone of contention amongst fans, to the point that Mendoza held a press conference on Tuesday to address the issue.
After claiming that there have only been 10 “controversial fights” sanctioned by the WBA since 2012, Mendoza went on to explain what happens when a questionable scorecard is turned in.
“All our fights, especially those that we consider to be much closer, are evaluated by our International Officials’ Committee judges, and we study each judge’s consistency to know if he/she had a bad night or if he/she has failed on several occasions,” he said.
“We also have a procedure to sanction our official should it be necessary, first it is verbal, then in writing and, later, if it is deemed necessary and according, there is a procedure to sanction the official. First it is verbal, then it is written and depending on the offence, a warning is chosen, but throughout the procedure we are bound to do it pedagogically to educate rather than punish.”
Mendoza also made the point that in the United States, governing bodies like the WBA do not decide on the judges for fights. The local commissions select judges, per the Muhammad Ali Safety Act, and organisations like the WBA have little say.
He noted that “organisations are in communication to take a stance and make our voices heard,” over the selection of judges.
Mendoza touched on the reporting of fights and urged boxing writers to think twice about dubbing a decision as “controversial,” arguing that a close fight that resulted in a decision the writer does not agree with is not necessarily “controversial.”
