generosity or glory?
Derrick Bravo
junior
As both a participant and a spectator, I can say the Bengal Bouts were a huge success because of the money raised for the missions of Bangladesh. Many students put in a lot of time and sacrifices to help the people in Bangladesh. But after viewing the Bouts, I am left wondering if all the students and student judges actually believe in the "cause," or if the Bouts are about glory and winning.
Throughout the quarterfinals and semifinals there were judgment calls, which seemed to go against the majority of the spectator's opinions. At these moments I felt that certainly the student judges must have seen something that I didn't, and I really didn't think too much of it. Then the finals came, and there were a few fights in which the fight was clearly won by the boxer who was judged to be the loser.
I know judges can miss a few punches here and there, but when one fighter dominates the other for most of the fight, the judges should be able to distinguish the winner in an obvious manner. It seemed that a few boxers won because of who they were and whom they knew — in particular, the judges. When I saw the student judges screaming in support for one of the fighters during a fight, a time when they should have been judging, I knew that the fight was going to be judged the wrong way. Ultimately it was.
One fight was even a unanimous decision for the fighter who clearly lost. Now, I know that the "cause" of the Bouts is for the missions, but seeing this made me think about how much the boxers must want the championship and how the "cause" is lost when such a thing happens.
I am not claiming that the judges meant to make wrong judgments, because I know that if I was judging and had a friend fighting, I would see every hit that my friend connected with and would probably fail to notice every hit that his opponent made, not because I meant to but because that is what happens when a judge has a friend fighting. I strongly believe that neutral, experienced judges should be brought in for the Bouts, just as experienced referees are brought in. Experienced judges would come in for free and judge the fights the way they saw them, without having any attachment to certain fighters. The offer was made earlier in the year to bring in professional judges for free, but was denied by the club.
Most importantly I feel for the boxers who went out there and out-hit the opponent, only to be on the losing end of things when the winner was announced. To know that the only way to win the fight was to knock out their opponent took their heart away. The fighters had won the fight in everybody's eyes except the judges. I praise the real champions of the Bouts for accepting their judged loss, knowing that the real reason they went into the ring was to raise money for the missions of Bangladesh.
There was also a moment when a fighter won the fight and was so caught up in the celebrations that he failed to show respect and acknowledge the opponent he had beaten. Which brings me back to the question. Is this for charity or for glory?
Derrick Bravo
junior
St. Edward's Hall
March 19, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, March 20, 2001
