WHITE OUT USED?! Pascal/Hopkins Controversy.

http://insidefights.com/2010/12/19/altered-scorecards-throw-bernard-hopkins-jean-pascal-decision-into-doubt/

"Sports Illustrated’s Chris Mannix is reporting that controvesry has engulfed the scoring of the Bernard Hopkins vs. Jean Pascal fight, with the Canadian judge’s scorecard having an altered eighth round score and the Belgain judge’s scorecard having an altered first round scorecard. Both scorecards show evidence of whiteout being used to change the score originally written down. On his twitter Mannix wrote “From what it looks–repeat, looks–like the changes cost Hopkins. But we don’t know the source of the whiteout yet. Officials investigating”. Mannix had earlier claimed that it looked like the original scorecards would have made Hopkins the split decision victory.

This comes after the initial controvesry over the scoring, with many having the fight for Bernard Hopkins 114-112. Mannix reports that at the post fight press conference Golden Boy CEO Richard Schaefer said that they would look into overturning the result legally but did not believe that there had been any corruption in terms of totalling up the scores. Schaefer also said that the WBC plans to order an immediate rematch between Hopkins and Pascal."




I remember someone posted the pics of the 3 scorecards but I don't remember in what thread it was or who posted it. Whoever posted it kindly post it here as well. If this is true then it's def a seriously topic that deserves its own thread.


(edit) nevermind, that was the master scoresheet, not the individual ones.

it was Grant who posted the pic. interesting enough, one judge gave the 1st round a 10-9.

odd, it looks like the judge originally had it 10-8 in Pascal's favor. But that would mean the alteration in that case was in Hopkins' favor! weird

(edit) nevermind, this is the master scoresheet, not the individual ones.

Groundhog wrote:it was Grant who posted the pic. interesting enough, one judge gave the 1st round a 10-9.

odd, it looks like the judge originally had it 10-8 in Pascal's favor. But that would mean the alteration in that case was in Hopkins' favor! weird

(edit) nevermind, this is the master scoresheet, not the individual ones.

10-10 round on one of the scorecard in the 10th round? Wasnt that a big BHOP round?

Pascal had a big flurry at the end of that round and it sucks that it cost BHop the fight

Scorecards were fine. White out was only used for the copies sent to the press. There were mistakes when originals were transcribed over to the copies for the press, so white out was used.

The scorecards matched up with individual cards given after each round. GB looked them all over and said the cards checked out fine

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=33996

This nonsense has to stop. There is no controversy. There was no hometown robbery. The two judges scoring a draw were no more controversial than the American judging scoring for Hopkins. They were all valid acceptable scores. Any of those rounds scored differently and the fight could have justifiably gone to Pascal.

This was not Alexander vs Kotelnik.

Shaw and Schaefer look like poor sport sleaze bags.

This nonsense has to stop. There is no controversy. There was no hometown robbery. The two judges scoring a draw were no more controversial than the American judging scoring for Hopkins. They were all valid acceptable scores. Any of those rounds scored differently and the fight could have justifiably gone to Pascal.

This was not Alexander vs Kotelnik.

Shaw and Schaefer look like poor sport sleaze bags.

Soonermark890 wrote:

Groundhog wrote:it was Grant who posted the pic. interesting enough, one judge gave the 1st round a 10-9.

odd, it looks like the judge originally had it 10-8 in Pascal's favor. But that would mean the alteration in that case was in Hopkins' favor! weird

(edit) nevermind, this is the master scoresheet, not the individual ones.

10-10 round on one of the scorecard in the 10th round? Wasnt that a big BHOP round?

i actually noticed that too. i remember specifically thinking that hop easily won round 10.

Canvas wrote:This nonsense has to stop. There is no controversy. There was no hometown robbery. The two judges scoring a draw were no more controversial than the American judging scoring for Hopkins. They were all valid acceptable scores. Any of those rounds scored differently and the fight could have justifiably gone to Pascal.

This was not Alexander vs Kotelnik.

Shaw and Schaefer look like poor sport sleaze bags.

I agree I just find the 10th round odd on one of the judges scorecards.

I intitaly scored rd 10 a 10-10 draw, but scratched it out and scored it for Hopkins. There are several rounds on the judges scorecards I find peculiar scored one way or another. There always is.

I certianly don't remember it as being a big Hopkins round, but that is a matter of perspective I guess.

Canvas wrote:I intitaly scored rd 10 a 10-10 draw, but scratched it out and scored it for Hopkins. There are several rounds on the judges scorecards I find peculiar scored one way or another. There always is.

ESP if old dirtbag Roth is one of the judges.

If there was half this much outrage for any of the Martinez robberies, or Delahoya/Sturm, or Bradley/Kotelnik then this reaction wouldn't be as offensive to me. But the vitriol being spewed towards Canada by self-serving, sleazy promoters, Hopkins, and a vocal minority of fans is a bit much.

Especially for a perfectly legitimate decision.

Canvas wrote:If there was half this much outrage for any of the Martinez robberies, or Delahoya/Sturm, or Bradley/Kotelnik then this reaction wouldn't be as offensive to me. But the vitriol being spewed towards Canada by self-serving, sleazy promoters, Hopkins, and a vocal minority of fans is a bit much.

Especially for a perfectly legitimate decision.

That happens in every close fight I think. Esp when the hometown boy get the decision or in this case retains the title.

The thing we all have to remember is watching a fight on TV, from above, from inconsistent angles, while listening to announcers is FUNDAMENTALLY different from watching a fight from ringside, from a single fixed point, from below, without announcers and with the crowd screaming.

In many ways it is shocking we agree with judges as often as we do.

marbleheadmaui wrote:The thing we all have to remember is watching a fight on TV, from above, from inconsistent angles, while listening to announcers is FUNDAMENTALLY different from watching a fight from ringside, from a single fixed point, from below, without announcers and with the crowd screaming.

In many ways it is shocking we agree with judges as often as we do.

A judge also doesn't get fifty replays and a DVR to rewind and watch something. On the other hand judges aren't drinking and eating while watching either.

hardcorebee24 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:The thing we all have to remember is watching a fight on TV, from above, from inconsistent angles, while listening to announcers is FUNDAMENTALLY different from watching a fight from ringside, from a single fixed point, from below, without announcers and with the crowd screaming.

In many ways it is shocking we agree with judges as often as we do.

A judge also doesn't get fifty replays and a DVR to rewind and watch something. On the other hand judges aren't drinking and eating while watching either.

See I think replays DISTORT what we're seeing. The broadcast team is deciding for us what is important. I like replay, but I make sure I score a round immediately so my mind isn't swayed by selective replay.

hardcorebee24 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:The thing we all have to remember is watching a fight on TV, from above, from inconsistent angles, while listening to announcers is FUNDAMENTALLY different from watching a fight from ringside, from a single fixed point, from below, without announcers and with the crowd screaming.

In many ways it is shocking we agree with judges as often as we do.

A judge also doesn't get fifty replays and a DVR to rewind and watch something. On the other hand judges aren't drinking and eating while watching either.

lol. True. I agree the perspective is different from where the judges sit and what we see on TV. I have never agreed with the sentiment of some that live is better than TV for seeing the real action.

I would submit the HD picture on my Big Screen plasma TV, with the benefit of replays and different angles, gives the most accurate view of the fight.

I must disclose, I watched the Pascal fight on an internet stream (a good clear one)

Canvas wrote:If there was half this much outrage for any of the Martinez robberies, or Delahoya/Sturm, or Bradley/Kotelnik then this reaction wouldn't be as offensive to me. But the vitriol being spewed towards Canada by self-serving, sleazy promoters, Hopkins, and a vocal minority of fans is a bit much.

Especially for a perfectly legitimate decision.

See, I think there was just as much outrage on those decisions. Devon got moved down in rankings and is given virtually no chance in his next fight because of that fight. I think you feel there is more outrage because you are siding with the minority and feel some of the heat from the majority crying foul.

marbleheadmaui wrote:See I think replays DISTORT what we're seeing. The broadcast team is deciding for us what is important. I like replay, but I make sure I score a round immediately so my mind isn't swayed by selective replay.

Very important point. I do the same.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:The thing we all have to remember is watching a fight on TV, from above, from inconsistent angles, while listening to announcers is FUNDAMENTALLY different from watching a fight from ringside, from a single fixed point, from below, without announcers and with the crowd screaming.

In many ways it is shocking we agree with judges as often as we do.

A judge also doesn't get fifty replays and a DVR to rewind and watch something. On the other hand judges aren't drinking and eating while watching either.

See I think replays DISTORT what we're seeing. The broadcast team is deciding for us what is important. I like replay, but I make sure I score a round immediately so my mind isn't swayed by selective replay.

That's the best way to score like a judge. My point was fans and such call robbery or what have you and criticize a judge because we HAVE the availability to see a replay and a variant of angles. Replay does distort our view and opinion.