Buatsi vs Parker was no robbery, and here is the awkward contradiction

Joshua Buatsi won an ugly maul on Saturday night against Zach Parker in Manchester. It was not a good fight.

At the end of 10 rounds, two tallies sided with Buatsi as the narrow winner, and a third judge returned a drawn verdict in a set of controversial scorecards. There was a divide at ringside and there was obviously a divide in the opposing corners.

There has been outrage on social media at the decision, as there was in 2022 over Josh Taylor’s contentious win over Jack Catterall, with some ridiculous claims. Some experts were divided, but that can happen in ugly fights, mauling affairs where the men often cancel each other out. The scores were 96-94 twice for Buatsi and a drawn card of 95-95, a decision that leaves Buatsi in position to fight the winner of David Benavidez v Anthony Yarde, which takes place on 22 November.

It seems that every single close fight is called a robbery, and that is absurd. The tiny differences in the scores for Parker and Buatsi mean that a round or two either way drastically changes the scores; that is not a robbery, that is a close decision.

It is certainly not incompetence. Each week there is a new debate about judging standards – it is nothing new – whenever officials sit down at ringside to score a fight.

The furious debate can then take on the time-weary assertion that boxing is crooked, fixed and run by criminals. The promoters, managers, officials and fixers are all dragged into the nonsense where brown envelopes become the currency of corruption. There is no need for fixed fights – we have skilled matchmakers and boxers who are desperate and take risks.

Buatsi (right) and Parker during their light-heavyweight showdown (Nick Potts/PA Wire)

And, more importantly, there is also a rule or two about coercion: the men and women susceptible to backhanders always have an addiction. They love money, drugs, gambling, booze and sex. I’m sure there are one or two I missed out. Their addiction means that they are vulnerable and also that there is never enough cash in the envelope, and that means they get discovered in their greed. It’s always money that brings people down in other sports – it is odd that it never happens in boxing, meaning that there are no brown envelopes and judges just see and hear and record different things during volatile nights in the ringside pit.

Parker attempts a shot to Buatsi’s body in Manchester on Saturday (Nick Potts/PA Wire)

There are hundreds of tales of hardship and heartbreak in boxing and they are down to bad management, poor advice and awful legal representation. The many dreadful acts take place far from the ring. Don King, perhaps the trickiest promoter in boxing history, summed it up perfectly with his timeless axiom: “ln boxing, you don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.” King believed – and joked about it – that signing the contract for a fight was just the start of the negotiations.

A quick glance at the three judges in action on the Parker-Buatsi fight quickly exposes a glaring flaw in the so-called selection of pliant, willing and outright crooked judges. Buatsi, you see, has just signed a highly lucrative and publicised deal with Frank Warren, the promoter of Saturday night’s fight. Buatsi is coming off a loss in February and everyone knew the Parker fight would be gruelling. Warren obviously wanted his main fighter, Buatsi, to win and move on to a world title fight. However, the judge who scored it a draw, Grzegorz Molenda, voted against Buatsi last September in another close fight. If the business is so blindingly corrupt, why would Warren risk having Molenda at ringside? It appears to me to be an awkward contradiction in the “boxing is crooked” debate. Boxing is not fair, and it has never been fair, but that is a different and ancient debate.

Empty gesture: Parker prematurely claims victory after his bout with Buatsi (Nick Potts/PA Wire)

The men and women who sit and judge fights are under pressure from the moment they sit down. They have people close to them, hollering and making statements in their space. They can be jostled, they can feel threatened and in that fiery pit, they have to act calm and professional and deliver a fair verdict.

Sure, they get things wrong, and then they can agonise over a mistake for a long, long time. It can be a luckless job, that is for sure. It is the same for referees, by the way; most judges are also top referees.

Parker and his opponent struggled to land decisive blows in an ugly fight (Nick Potts/PA Wire)

On Saturday night, Buatsi and Parker clashed on many levels; it was a perfect storm of ugliness at times. Parker believes he never lost a round; Buatsi believes Parker never did enough. It happens in fights where there is a lot on the line. When it was over, three men delivered a close decision – they might watch it back without sound and score it differently. That happens when sanctioning bodies respond to the hysteria at the end of a close fight.

Buatsi wants a world title fight, Parker wants revenge. That is boxing, a sport where tiny margins can change a life. Nobody ever said it was fair.