Virgil Kalakoda - Kai Kauramaki contrversial decision?

Dutch Windmill · Post by **Dutch Windmill** » 01 Nov 2003, 03:57

The fight is listed as being scored "very controversial"

Kalakoda scored two 10-8 rounds and controlled the fight, especially in the early rounds. There's no way that this was a controversial decision. I saw one guy calling this a controversial decision and that was a countryman of Kauramaki.

I just watched it again and got it 98-91

Can this be removed or can the person that entered this explain me why he did it?

brett · Post by **brett** » 01 Nov 2003, 11:05

Although the editors have 'agreed' to allow usage of the phrase 'controversial decision', the word 'very' is subjective and should never be used, regardless of the explanation.

Dutch Windmill · Post by **Dutch Windmill** » 03 Nov 2003, 15:55

Nice and all, but it still says "very controversial decision"
I'm losing sleep over this, and I'm sure Virgil does too.

It's just not correct

brett · Post by **brett** » 04 Nov 2003, 00:10

'Very' is gone - you and Virgil can rest easy.

Regards,

Brett Paul Dunbar · Post by **Brett Paul Dunbar** » 04 Nov 2003, 14:46

I think the problem in this case is the word "controversial" rather than "very", Kalakoda won easily, as far as I could see the official scorecards had the fight far closer than it actually was. I don't think there was anything controversial about the decision. There is some objectivity as to whether a fight is controversial, does the post fight reportage widely disagree with the official verdict, you can also reasonably make a distinction as to the degree of dissent. As far as I can see this was a completely straightforward win for Kalakoda, and I was really hoping to see him get beaten. He not only won clearly, he looked pretty good doing it, it seems he looks a lot better if his opponent is reasonably good, rather than the weak opposition I had seen him against before.

alarmakool · Post by **alarmakool** » 04 Nov 2003, 16:20

Is it possible that what the editor meant was the scorecards were far closer than they should have been? I didn't see the fight, but its possible what was meant that the decision was contriversial because the judges had it close, when they shouldn't have. Just an idea, I probably misunderstood the thread tho

brett · Post by **brett** » 04 Nov 2003, 20:46

Brett -

I left "controversial decision" because as editors we allow it and since I did not see the fight, I would have no right to voice an opinion. However, since 'very' is obviously subjective, I removed it.

Personally, I would rather we not use use the phrase 'controversial decision' at all (even for blatant robberies). Every decision/stoppage could potentially be deemed controversial by someone. Our decision to allow it just gives life to the type of argument Dutch brings up. It's too easy a tool to use for someone who wants to express their opinion of a fight.

Alarmakool -
possible, but since no reason was given as to why they thought it was 'very controversial' - one would probably first think that the guy that lost should have won. However, you bring up a valid point which I would say is just another reason why we shouldn't allow it.

Regards,

alarmakool · Post by **alarmakool** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:44

Yes, I agree. It shouldn't be used unless a valid discription of what is meant is included.

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 23 Jan 2004, 11:33

Anyone care if I delete it?

Post by **John** » 23 Jan 2004, 11:56

Jens S · Post by **Jens S** » 23 Jan 2004, 12:03

His loss against Mark Graversen wasn't controversial as well. An even fight that could have gone either way, but if every even fight is controversial...

4 out of 5 losses are considerede controversial. Either the guy is extremely unlucky to be robbed (also at home) or it is the guy that writes "controversial" who is to be considered controversial.

Jens

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 24 Jan 2004, 07:30

I'll delete all the remarks on Kauramaki's record

Petu v.d. Pajm · Post by **Petu v.d. Pajm** » 30 Jan 2004, 04:46

Peräjoki & Graversen -losses were close fights, which could have possibly gone both ways, but definitely not controversial decisions which IMO implies "a robbery". Actually, a lot of people thought Kauramäki vs. Peräjoki should've been a draw, but I'm yet to hear a neutral opinion of Kauramäki WINNING. Against Graversen, I happened to be working Kai's corner and had him winning 39-38. Again not decisive enough to call the decision controversial.

Kauramäki vs. Patko was absolutely unbelievable decision (at home ring). I was there and consensus of the crowd was about 5-1 in rounds on Kauramäki's favor. Patko didn't land a solid punch in whole fight. If "controversial decision" -remarks are upheld, this one would deserve it...

Finally I haven't seen the fight, but it sounds like Kauramäki probably pressed Kalakoda tighter than most people expected and thus got the "sympathy vote". However, even most Finns who have seen the fight (I haven't) thought Kai would have deserved the decision if NOT for 2 counts. So, not controversial either...

Virgil Kalakoda - Kai Kauramaki contrversial decision?

Virgil Kalakoda - Kai Kauramaki contrversial decision?

Close is not controversial