Boxing needs sweeping changes to officiating after Golovkin-Alvarez farce

Across three judge’s scorecards, the bout was scored a draw — not a totally implausible reading of a fascinating collision of boxing styles, although not the verdict of most observers worldwide, who had it a clear win for GGG.

But instrumental to the result was the card turned in by judge Adalaide Byrd, who gave it 118-110 in favour of Canelo, despite the Mexican having spent most of the 12 rounds somewhere between the back foot and the ropes.

Byrd’s verdict caused howls of derision in the arena, and those howls have whipped into a gale of discontent in the days since. She has been relieved of her duties for a time by the Nevada Athletic Commission (NAC), which sanctioned the bout and will be asked to explain her scoring.

She is reported to be distraught. Be that as it may. There is nothing in seeing Byrd strung out on the washing line that should give us any comfort — or cause us to believe that the problem has been solved.

The controversial result has conspiracy theorists pointing to the fact that a draw on Saturday was exactly the result that would demand a money‑spinning rematch next year. The odds halved on just such a result in the hours before the fight.

The damage to boxing is done. GGG-Canelo was supposed to be the fight for the real fans: the polar opposite of the vulgar pantomime played out between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor last month. Instead, it has arguably done more damage to the sport than that risible, cynical mismatch ever did.

Yes, we will get GGG-Canelo II. Probably III and IV as well. On the basis of what happened in the ring, rather than outside it, that is no bad thing.

But if I could trade a trilogy between these two brilliant fighters for sweeping changes to the boxing officiating, particularly in Nevada, then heaven knows I would.

The NAC’s lazy monopoly over the world’s biggest fights gives it no incentive to change its ways, but it is plainly failing in its duty to improve, urgently, its pool of judges. An elite worldwide pool of officials, like that maintained for international referees in sports like rugby union, football and cricket, is a pipe dream, given boxing’s organisation by private fiefdom rather than under a strong worldwide governing body.

A truly bold reform would be for judges to score rounds electronically and live — anonymously if necessary, but visible to crowd and TV audience in real time. The pressure on them during the fight would increase ominously, but so would the vital sense of scrutiny and transparency.

No one who loves sport should prefer complaining about officials’ competence to raving about the athletes’ prowess. But boxing right now is suffering. The sport is sick and, without intervention, it will only get sicker.