|
|
|
| August 16, 2008 | Saturday | Sha'aban 13, 1429 |
Judging row puts boxing in Olympic spotlight
BEIJING, Aug 15: Growing criticism of the judging at the boxing in Beijing has put the spotlight back on an issue that has come close to getting the sport knocked out of the Olympics in the past.
Ecuador featherweight Luis Porozo became the latest of a number of boxers and coaches to criticise the judging after losing 6-5 to China’s Li Yang in a second-round bout on Friday. “I’m so sad. I think it’s unfair,” Porozo told reporters. “I don’t agree with the judges but I have to respect their decision and learn from this for the next time.”
Earlier, British coach Terry Edwards joined those suggesting scoring had been very generous for China after bantamweight Joe Murray was outpointed 17-7 by Gu Yu in the first round.
After losing 8-3 on points to Uzbek Dilshod Mahmudov on Thursday, French welterweight Jaoid Chiguer said he might quit the sport because of the judging.
The International Amateur Boxing Association (AIBA) rejected the criticism, saying all decisions so far had been fair.
“You can’t have a major tournament without criticism but I am satisfied that we have so far had the right winner on each occasion,” AIBA technical delegate Terry Smith told reporters.
A series of controversial decisions at the 1988 Seoul Olympics led to the introduction of the electronic scoring system, under which a point is scored if three of the five judges press a button within a second to register it.
But criticism of judging and claims of corruption did not go away and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) temporarily froze payments to the AIBA after the 2004 Athens Games.
Boxing has worked hard on cleaning up its act since then with the AIBA launching reforms, notably changing the much-criticised scoring system and the rules for assigning referees and judges.
Asked if the latest criticism might threaten boxing’s Olympic future, Smith said: “I am concerned with how we are perceived by the IOC, but what I’ve been told by the IOC is that we have come a long way in four years.”—Reuters
|
|
|
|
