Disputing the Undisputed: Boxing and Political Consensus
Boxing may have three judges, but the world stage has only one—the U.S.
Note: This is an unlocked LMA module. If you want access to the rest of Liberation Martial Arts, upgrade your account. We send out learning modules almost daily. If you're no longer getting LMA updates, your payment information may no longer be up to date. Click on the table of contents above to see if you have access to LMA.
Artur Beterbiev defeated Dmitry Bivol to claim the throne as the undisputed light heavyweight boxing champion. Two of the world's best fought a tightly contested match, with one judge scoring the fight a draw while the other two gave it to Beterbiev. However, many viewers—including boxers and professional analysts—felt that Bivol was the clear winner. At the heart of this discrepancy lies the nature of perception and consensus. Boxing just illustrates this universal problem more clearly.
The problem of perspective
Imagine three judges in a boxing match seated around the ring at three different sides. Their view of the fight is inherently different because they are literally not seeing the same thing. One judge may have a clear view of Beterbiev's aggressive, power-punching as he pushes Bivol against the ropes. Another may see Bivol's defensive, counterpunching more clearly. In this way, the judges are not just disagreeing on the outcome—they are operating from entirely different perspectives.
In politics, we see a similar phenomenon. Political actors do not simply disagree on a solution; they do not even agree on what the problem is. Different economic, social, and ideological standpoints, which include self-interest, lead to varying interpretations of the same issue. Just as judges don't share a common vantage point in the ring, political actors don't share a common vision of society or its priorities.
The U.S., for example, proclaims itself a democracy, but that definition shifts depending on convenience. It's democracy in name, but how it's wielded changes based on political needs. There are also differing views on the U.S. and its world order. The U.S. is Schrödinger's democracy—it isn't a democracy, yet despite the fascistic results, it's always a democracy.
Boxing scoring, with its inconsistencies and controversies, makes this problem easier to visualize. Judges, like political actors and voters, not only interpret what they see based on their perspectives but justify their interpretations based on their own values and biases.
What are we really judging?
In boxing, the judges are not just positioned in different places; they also don't even agree on what they're supposed to be looking for. Some judges prioritize aggression and pressure, others value defense and counterpunching, and still others might give more weight to technical skills or ring generalship. There is no universal standard that all judges agree upon, and even if there was consensus on the standard, as in MMA, the interpretations will still vary. This is why boxing decisions—especially in close fights like Beterbiev vs. Bivol—are often controversial.
It's not only different perspectives but also different criteria. Two people might see the same genocide, and one might conclude, "This is horrific," while the other might conclude, "I like that shit." We struggle to reach a consensus conclusion even when everyone supposedly sees the same thing because meaning exists within specific contexts. The judges, like political participants, are engaging in mutual discourse, but they each follow different rules based on their values. There are no overarching, absolute, agreed-upon values, so we make different judgments and conclusions. Even if participants have the same values, they might not see the same thing.
Terms like "freedom," "democracy," "authoritarianism," or "fascism" should have clear, agreed-upon definitions, but they don't. The definitions are fluid, changing based on who wields the power to define them. The U.S. uses different criteria for "freedom" and "democracy" when judging non-Western countries than it does for itself. Likewise, for "authoritarian" and "fascist."
There is no consensus standard for winning a boxing decision; it's decided by those in power. In politics, what is right and wrong is decided and enforced globally by the most powerful nation. "Truth" is determined by the one who has absolute power.
Boxing may have three judges, but the world stage has only one—the U.S. Yet unlike boxing, no governing body oversees the One Judge. In the absence of international checks and balances, that one singular entity decides who is "democratic" and "authoritarian." The One Judge is not authoritarian. The One Judge rule is democracy. Those who resist the One Judge are undemocratic. Those who refuse to be ruled by the One Judge are authoritarian and in need of overthrow. The One Judge rule does not allow for consensus—only the illusion of one.
The fight is already decided
The fact that most viewers and fighters believed Bivol won, while two judges awarded the victory to Beterbiev, should raise an important question: how do we reconcile these differing perspectives? However, there is nothing to reconcile because it's not up to us. The officials have already made their decision, and it is final. Judges, the ones with power, are right by default, and that's democracy. The U.S. political system often operates with outcomes that have already been decided, regardless of public opinion. The notion of reconciliation doesn't exist when power dynamics have preordained the result. Its decisions are final because they stem from power, not consensus.
What is right and wrong isn't decided by powerful countries but specifically by the most powerful one. Power and the most powerful are not the same, just as champion and contender are not the same. The U.S. is the undisputed champion of global power, sitting on a throne atop a mountain of bodies. It constantly invents false contenders to maintain the paranoia that it's always under threat, to suggest its dominance is not absolute, to portray itself as an underdog. This tactic justifies its continued exertion of power, creating an illusion of choice and competition where the U.S. is the only clear option and the one you root for—when in reality, you never had a choice, and your support is involuntary.
Even if the U.S. global power structure were about majority consensus, it would not be the consensus of the world but the consensus of the most powerful country. Its global dominance renders dissenting voices—especially those from the global majority—powerless. This inequality solidifies U.S. hegemony by shaping the narrative and constraining alternative views from gaining influence or traction. The U.S. is undisputed by erasing and murdering disputers.
The criteria always change
There can be no common understanding because the criteria keep changing. Boxing judges follow different rules based on their own values, but their values may change from round to round and fight to fight. In politics, the U.S. shifts its moral and ethical frameworks to suit its objectives. Inconsistencies and injustices are not bugs but features of the system. We live in the world Western hegemony and colonialism have built. The system isn't broken—it's designed this way. You can't "fix" this chaos when it's woven into the fabric of how it operates. You need a new system for new outcomes.
The impossible consensus
Boxing illustrates the deeper problem of political consensus more clearly than politics itself. The fractured perspectives, the lack of agreed-upon criteria, and the preordained outcomes are not unique to the sport. They mirror the challenges we face globally now. Just as judges see different fights depending on where they sit and what criteria they value, political actors see different realities depending on where they are situated in society and what they prioritize. Before we can come up with a solution, enough of us who share the same values must unite to see the same problem. Then fight like hell.
To access the Liberation Martial Arts curriculum and contribute to the sustainability of this project, consider upgrading your membership. Find other ways to support me here. – Sam
✊✊✊
(I write daily about martial arts and other topics from a liberatory perspective. If you like my work, upgrade your subscription. You can also support me on Patreon or make a one-time donation on Ko-fi. Find Southpaw at its website. Get the swag on Spring. Also check out Liberation Martial Arts Online.)