Wilder vs Fury judges: Totally different than Vegas
Historically, when a British fighter travels to the U.S. to face an American opponent - and vice versa - it's not uncommon for the resident fighter to receive good ol' fashioned 'home cooking' from the judges.
Evander Holyfield vs Nikolai Valuev anyone?
So why isn't Warren concerned his man might get slighted on the scorecards?
“Well the difference is it’s not in Vegas," Warren told Fight Hub TV.
"And we have agreed what the judges will be — the make up of them. So I’m not worried about that. That was part of our negotiations. What happens when you go to Vegas, unfortunately, is the Vegas commission [NSAC] pick the judges, the officials.
“Now there have been some bad decisions, there’s been some great decisions in Vegas — I don’t be slagging Vegas off — but it’s just happened, certainly in the first Canelo fight. It was just an awful, awful decision. It’s bad for boxing because it took away what was a great fight and a great advert for our sport.”
Promoters and managers, when they play a role in determining judges, will often study their history and try to find the judges who are most likely to favor their fighter's style.
Judge selection is a very under-discussed topic in boxing but the selection process, alone, can be highly advantageous/hurtful to the combatants. No, not all judges are equal.
And like fans, two “competent” judges can have contrasting style preferences, whether they choose to admit it or not.
Let’s cycle back to Canelo Alvarez vs Gennady Golovkin in Las Vegas last month. The Nevada Athletic Commission, whether on purpose or by coincidence, may have selected three judges who favor aggression and hard punching over punch volume and ring generalship.
If a fight is close and goes the distance, the verdict is highly dependent on the judges’ preference. And if at least 2 of the 3 judges have a history of favoring a certain style, the fighter with that style will have an edge.