Last Saturday we lived one more night of controversy for the cards of the judges in boxing, in the fight in which Jermell charlo Y Brian Castaño they tied in their bid to find an undisputed champion at 154 pounds.
A 117-111 card in favor of Jermell charlo, appreciated by the judge Nelson Vazquez, which broke the night. It was not the only detail to notice, because another judge Steve Weisfeld scored the 10th round 10-8 against Brian Castaño without there having been a fall.
So, I took on the task of analyzing the fight, reviewing the three cards in detail, and trying to clarify what happened on Saturday in San Antonio.
The 10-8 with no knockdown of the tenth round
One of the criteria that most attracts the attention of what was scored on the official cards of the fight between Jermell charlo Y Brian Castaño it’s a 10-8 with no fall. The judge who marked it was Steven Weisfeld, in the tenth round.
Let us remember that, indeed, that tenth round was the most suffering for Brian Castaño. With 1:39 left to finish the round, Charlo caught with a right to Chestnut That made him stumble backwards.
From there, visibly touched, Chestnut he fled the rest of the round, stumbling legs, and Charlo in pursuit. It was practically half a round running from Chestnut, and with Charlo chasing after him, landing some hard-hitting punches, though no more than 10.
However, the Argentine survived the round on his feet, never going to the canvas. And yet Weisfeld he gave 10-8, without falling, when usually 10-8 only occurs in the event of a fall.
The question begs: is it correct to give a 10-8 without a fall?
The answer is yes. Or at least, there is a scenario in which you can give 10-8 without a fall. In the Boxing Judge’s Guide, official document of the World Boxing Council, explains that option.
The CMB instructs his judges that they can give a 10-8 without a fall, when there is an “overwhelming advantage.”
According to the document, there is an overwhelming advantage “when the judge’s mental count gives the boxer that he is overpowering and punishing his opponent and the only thing left is for him to knock him down, the round will receive a score of 10-8.”
Yes, Chestnut he was hurt half a round, running away. But Jermell charlo he couldn’t overwhelm him or give him an obvious beating for the rest of the round.
The criterion of CMB giving 10-8 without a fall to a fighter who is overwhelmed can be unfair. In boxing, there is a huge difference between falling and not falling, no matter how overwhelmed a fighter is. There is a merit in being able to stay on your feet, despite the blows. Y Chestnut never fell.
In the end, that criterion of Steve Weisfeld did not influence the result. It was just Weisfeld the only judge who saw win Brian Castaño despite having given him 10-8 against without a fall. Weisfeld scored 114-113 in favor of Chestnut, and if he had hit a normal 10-9 in that 10th round, his scorecard would have been 115-113 for Chestnut.
The 117-111 of Nelson Vázquez
Of the cards, the one that ruined the night was Nelson Vazquez who saw a loose victory of 117-111 in favor of Jermell charlo on Chestnut. Vazquez saw win Charlo in 9 of the 12 rounds.
But if we go into detail, analyzing round by round, we will realize that when in doubt, Vazquez always favored Charlo.
For example, Brian Castaño was a clear dominator in rounds 3, 4, 5 and 7. They were rounds in which, according to the figures of Compubox, Chestnut doubled and even tripled in power strokes connected to Charlo. And yet of those four rounds, Vazquez saw winner Charlo in two of them, 4 and 5.
Let’s review the numbers for those two rounds. In the fourth round, Chestnut He landed 23 punches, against only 11 of Charlo; and in strokes of power, Chestnut connected 23, against only 6 of Charlo.
On the fifth, Chestnut landed 20 total punches, while Charlo he connected only 8; and in power strokes, the Argentine connected 18 against only 4 of Charlo. In other words, there were two rounds in which the impacts of Chestnut they were twice as many as he connected Charlo. And yet Nelson Vazquez gave those two rounds to Jermell charlo on your card.
As for the rounds that are doubtful, or without a clear dominator, we could point out rounds 1, 6, 8, 9, and 12. They were rounds in which the proportion of strokes was more or less even. And yet, in those five more tight or dubious rounds, Nelson Vazquez
saw winner Jermell charlo in four of them. That is, when in doubt, Vazquez almost always favored Jermell charlo.
Needless to say, the rounds in which Jermell charlo was a clear dominator, the 2, the 10, and the 11, he won them all on the card Nelson Vazquez.
Nelson Vazquez got tangled up only on his own card. If I had given Brian Castaño the advantage in the four rounds that he clearly won, as he did with those of Charlo, his score would have been 115-113 in favor of Charlo. Something much more dignified and reasonable than the deranged 117-111 that blew up the night.
The Solomonic of Tim Cheatham on the draw card
We have already identified which rounds fall into the doubtful category, and which are clear in favor of one or the other fighter. With this, we can identify the impartiality of Tim cheatham, the American judge who scored a tie.
Cheatham He did what any respectable judge should do: give the round to the clear winner. Of the four rounds that Chestnut clearly won in Compubox, Cheatham awarded 3; and of the three rounds that Charlo won clearly, Cheatham gave him all three. No news.
And the doubtful rounds? Even in that it was Solomonic Cheatham. Of the five doubtful rounds, three were given to Charlo, and two were awarded to Chestnut. Of the cards Charlo against Chestnut, that of Cheatham was the voice of sanity and impartiality.
How important is Compubox?
If we hadn’t seen the fight, and only saw the strip of Compubox, we would think that Brian Castaño clearly won. He landed more total hits than Charlo, 173 against 151; and he landed more power shots with a wide advantage, 164 against 98.
It is true that Compubox it is a hit counter, and nothing else. It tells us only part of the story. But, in the end, that part is the most important of that story. And to clarify it, we can resort again to the official criteria of the CMB in its Judge’s Guide.
And in that guide, an official document of the agency, ponders that there are three bases for scoring: damage, dominance and disruption.
In the damage is the “knocking down the opponent, violently shaking the opponent’s head and the intense blow to the body that obviously undermines his opponent”.
On dominance, the guide lists that “there must be overwhelming advantage in terms of connected strikes, that he must continually take the lead in actions during an exchange and repeatedly land the last few strikes during an exchange.”
And in terms of disruption, one should observe evidence of “effective counterattack that alters the opponent’s strategy, of blows that force the opponent to repeatedly hug, of blows that force their opponent into a defensive posture, and of blows that prevent or they neutralize the opponent’s progress ”.
The same guide also cites four main criteria for scoring a round in favor of one or the other fighter: clean and effective blows, effective aggressiveness, dominance of the ring, and defense.
When analyzing these fundamentals and those criteria, that the same CMB appointment in your Judge’s Guide, we will notice that there may indeed be a high correlation with Compubox. In other words, if a fighter connects twice as many power blows as his opponent, the result will be that he generates damage, that creates dominance, and that also prevails in clean blows and effective aggressiveness.
And yet in four rounds where Chestnut landed more clean shots, was dominating, was the aggressor and put Charlo to the ropes, the card Nelson Vazquez saw lose in two of those rounds Chestnut.