Booth V Kelly Spoiler

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 17 Dec 2004, 19:37

Kelly wins on points 116-112, 117-112, 119-109!!!

The wide scores do not tell the true story of the fight

Great fight both fighter showed great skill and determination in a tachnical see-saw battle. Kelly was hampered by a cut eye from the fourth round. Many of the round were very close and difficult to score.

I had Kelly the winner 116-114

Booth has a good argument for a rematch in 2005.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 17 Dec 2004, 19:42

DISAGREE BIG STYLE KOJOE,

Thought some of the rounds were close, I scored the vast majority 10-9 to Kelly.

I had it Kelly by 6. The commentary was very poor all round, it was all Booth, Booth Booth.

I am glad the judges scored it that way.

Good effort by Jason no doubt, I thought Kelly would have been a DOMINANT wide scoring winner. He was a wide scoring winner on my card, but most of the rounds were close.

glittermonkey · Post by **glittermonkey** » 18 Dec 2004, 07:25

I had it by four to Kelly, but so many of the rounds were close. I'd disagree with 119-109, that was a bit harsh on Booth. The main thing is, we got the right winner.

I agree Stu, I thought the commentary was pretty poor last night. There was one round somewhere near the middle of the fight where both Darke and Watt were giving Booth enormous credit, even though he barely landed a punch, meanwhile, Kelly was just working away and landing some nice shots, which were being totally ignored. Strange really, because Darke and Watt are certainly the 'A' team as far as Sky's coverage goes.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Dec 2004, 07:53

Actually my Father scored it (and I do usually agree with his card) 11-1 Kelly (giving Booth only the 6th).

Whilst I did disagree on second viewing (and with the sound low) I think I prefer that card than anything lower than Kelly by 4.

What was Spencer Oliver and Barry seeing I don't know.

Barry said Booth was pulling away after the 6th, that was the first round I gave him. I gave him the 6th, 7th, and 10th - the rest I gave to Kelly.

Every round was competitive, but I though Kelly controlled throughout.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Dec 2004, 07:56

Incidently, that might be the first time I can be critical of Watt, although I think Darke was mainly to blame. Jim would say something like, "Kelly defence is scattering" and Darke would continue the negative theme (for Kelly) in the mean time, Kelly had landed some nice crisp work.

When a fighter "wins" all 3 of the computer analysis (Thrown, landed, success) it gives a clear indication of who won the fight.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 18 Dec 2004, 08:21

stujones wrote:DISAGREE BIG STYLE KOJOE,

Thought some of the rounds were close, I scored the vast majority 10-9 to Kelly.

I had it Kelly by 6. The commentary was very poor all round, it was all Booth, Booth Booth.

I am glad the judges scored it that way.

Good effort by Jason no doubt, I thought Kelly would have been a DOMINANT wide scoring winner. He was a wide scoring winner on my card, but most of the rounds were close.

I have just had another look at my scorecard after a good night sleep and I had added it up wrong when rushing to post this spoiler.

Sorry.

My real score was KELLY 116 BOOTH 112

StuJones wrote

I gave him the 6th, 7th, and 10th - the rest I gave to Kelly.

The same as me, but I also gave Booth the 5th, I didn't tape the fight so I can't rewatch it to defend my decision, but I stand by it.

I also still stand by my comments about the judges scores not reflecting how competative the fight was. I also would not argue if they set up a rematch.

Good fight between two good fighters. The right man won and I admit I am glad Kelly got the nod.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Dec 2004, 08:24

KOJOE90 wrote:
stujones wrote:DISAGREE BIG STYLE KOJOE,

Thought some of the rounds were close, I scored the vast majority 10-9 to Kelly.

I had it Kelly by 6. The commentary was very poor all round, it was all Booth, Booth Booth.

I am glad the judges scored it that way.

Good effort by Jason no doubt, I thought Kelly would have been a DOMINANT wide scoring winner. He was a wide scoring winner on my card, but most of the rounds were close.

I have just had another look at my scorecard after a good night sleep and I had added it up wrong when rushing to post this spoiler. Sorry.

My real score was KELLY 116 BOOTH 112

StuJones wrote

I gave him the 6th, 7th, and 10th - the rest I gave to Kelly.

The same as me, but I also gave Booth the 5th, I didn't tape the fight so I can't rewatch it to defend my decision, but I stand by it.

I also still stand by my comments about the judges scores not reflecting how competative the fight was. I also would not argue if they set up a rematch.

Good fight between two good fighters. The right man won and I admit I am glad Kelly got the nod.

Oh yeah I agree with the last two comments. Booth went up in my estimation in defeat, every round was competitive but I thought Kelly won most of them.

A rematch would be good, as this was my type of fight - but I disagree with Gilmour, I think Kelly will win pretty much every time (barring cuts).

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 18 Dec 2004, 09:10

Well I had Booth winning by 2 rounds. No effing way did Kelly do enough to win a decision IMO, although it wasn't quite the shafting that we saw when Kelly "won" the Euro belt versus Mahmutov.

I was equally pissed off with Darkie & Watt, only because they seemed to miss half of the good work Booth put in over the final 3rd of the fight, instead concentrating on who looked more tired than the other. Newsflash: You don't score points by looking fresher than your opponent.

And why is it that when Kelly was winning a round clearly he gets full credit for it end of story, but when Booth wins a round clearly he's nicking it from Kelly, I mean WTF is all that bullshit? Really really irritating showing from Sky's top commentators, capped off by them awarding the final round to Kelly even though Booth won it clearly.

Jimmy once argued that as subscribers we ought to have the right to switch off the commentators, sounds like a bloody good idea after the shambles I witnessed last night.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Dec 2004, 09:28

Kilburn wrote:Well I had Booth winning by 2 rounds. No effing way did Kelly do enough to win a decision IMO, although it wasn't quite the shafting that we saw when Kelly "won" the Euro belt versus Mahmutov.

I was equally pissed off with Darkie & Watt, only because they seemed to miss half of the good work Booth put in over the final 3rd of the fight, instead concentrating on who looked more tired than the other. Newsflash: You don't score points by looking fresher than your opponent.

And why is it that when Kelly was winning a round clearly he gets full credit for it end of story, but when Booth wins a round clearly he's nicking it from Kelly, I mean WTF is all that bullshit? Really really irritating showing from Sky's top commentators, capped off by them awarding the final round to Kelly even though Booth won it clearly.

Jimmy once argued that as subscribers we ought to have the right to switch off the commentators, sounds like a bloody good idea after the shambles I witnessed last night.

I think you may be in the minority, the 12th round CLEAR to BOOTH?

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 18 Dec 2004, 09:37

stujones wrote:I think you may be in the minority, the 12th round CLEAR to BOOTH?

Yep, no question about it, the wallies on the mic were too preoccupied with babbling on about how Booth looked tired at the end of a 12 round fight, rather than observing who was actually landing the quality punches.

I don't want a ruck about this Stu, we know by now that you and I never back down. You saw what you saw and I saw what I saw. End of. 8)

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 18 Dec 2004, 09:37

I think Kelly was a clear winner in a close fight, lol, if that makes any sense. I thought most rounds were close but Kelly did enough to win most of them hence the wide scoring which made the fight look on paper more one sided than it was. Booth was a little ragged at times particuarly at the end of the fight and never appeared to me to be in full control while Kelly was the boss and more authorative in the centre of the ring and appeared to be doing the cleaner work throughout. I thought Kelly clearly won the final round and the SKY commentary was very poor, i have heard people remark before about how Ian Darke leads the audience along and is a very domineering commentator. I like Darke but noticed that a lot in last nights fight.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 18 Dec 2004, 13:17

I'd just like to say....................I have no idea who won the fight

glittermonkey · Post by **glittermonkey** » 18 Dec 2004, 13:36

MightyWarrior wrote:I'd just like to say....................I have no idea who won the fight

Way to sit on the fence.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 18 Dec 2004, 13:37

Kilburn wrote: Jimmy once argued that as subscribers we ought to have the right to switch off the commentators, sounds like a bloody good idea after the shambles I witnessed last night.

Been wanting a separate feed like that for years.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 18 Dec 2004, 14:17

Dead easy for them to give us a separate feed too. Digital euro news on Astra has different languages you can listen to at the press of a button.
Sky could easily use the 8 or more audio channels they can output for a separate feed - just the live sound without commentary.
It's there, they just don't give us the option of accessing it.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 18 Dec 2004, 14:18

steve689 wrote:I think Kelly was a clear winner in a close fight, lol, if that makes any sense. I thought most rounds were close but Kelly did enough to win most of them hence the wide scoring which made the fight look on paper more one sided than it was. Booth was a little ragged at times particuarly at the end of the fight and never appeared to me to be in full control while Kelly was the boss and more authorative in the centre of the ring and appeared to be doing the cleaner work throughout. I thought Kelly clearly won the final round and the SKY commentary was very poor, i have heard people remark before about how Ian Darke leads the audience along and is a very domineering commentator. I like Darke but noticed that a lot in last nights fight.

My view exactly.

Kilburn, yeah no problem call it a simple agree to disagree.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » 19 Dec 2004, 19:54

I had the fight 116-112 to Kelly.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 19 Dec 2004, 20:37

Welcome to the forum, Buster.

dandantheweatherman · Post by **dandantheweatherman** » 19 Dec 2004, 22:18

There's probably no wider appeal in it, but Sky could have a fanzone for the boxing like they do for the football. However, it's probably more effort than its worth for Sky.

In any case would you really be happy with however was in a fanzone? Chances are if you're a big fan of something and knowledgeable about it you can make your own informed opinions and don't even need/want commentary.

For what it's worth I like some of the insightful comments Jim Watt makes, but the rest of them on Sky add nothing to the boxing experience so I turn the sound off.

The Gaffer · Post by **The Gaffer** » 20 Dec 2004, 06:09

When the BBC show England football matches they quite often give you the option on interactive of changing the commentary.

As far as I remember the choice is either normal, no commentary or radio 5 commentary. This is pretty handy as it gives the option of not having to listen to Lawrenson babble on inanely for 90 minutes.

Obviously Sky couldn't give them same options with the boxing, but they could easily give us access to the live feed without commentary.

Mind you they only really seem bothered about using the full potential of thier interactive service on football, or huge events like the Ryder Cup. They haven't even got interactive coverage on the cricket at the moment, which is quite sad because cricket is the perfect sport with which to use the service.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 20 Dec 2004, 15:27

The Gaffer wrote:When the BBC show England football matches they quite often give you the option on interactive of changing the commentary.

As far as I remember the choice is either normal, no commentary or radio 5 commentary. This is pretty handy as it gives the option of not having to listen to Lawrenson babble on inanely for 90 minutes.

I never watch Football as I hate it with a deep, deep burning passion, so I didn't know this option was available.

It would indeed be great if this option was available during Boxing coverage.

THEBUTCH · Post by **THEBUTCH** » 21 Dec 2004, 09:20

Booth-Kelly was a really enjoyable affair. Two quality guys serving up a treat. I could have watched them box each other all night long. What a shame the arena only filled up when Mark Hobson's fight started, Booth and Kelly deserved a lot more than that.

The scoring of two of the judges I could understand completely. The American judge seemed off the mark.

It really was one of those fights that could have swung either way. I agreed with Jim Watt when he said several rounds were close and if you gave each of those rounds to the same guy, you've got a clear winner on your hands.

I could have made a case for Booth or Kelly or a draw. Funny moment from Jason afterwards, when he implied he was going to collar the American judge :)

Chris the fighter · Post by **Chris the fighter** » 21 Dec 2004, 12:55

Hope Kelly and Booth do it again, Kelly is very good boxer but not much of a banger he has to relay on his skills. I give credit for him going to South America to fight then IBF champ Pacheco he lost but it was a great effect.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 21 Dec 2004, 13:15

Chris the fighter wrote:Kelly is very good boxer but not much of a banger he has to relay on his skills. I give credit for him going to South America to fight then IBF champ Pacheco he lost but it was a great effect.

I agree it just goes to show that Kelly is a real fighter, willing to take on the best in their own backyard. He may only be a little guy but he has a big fighting heart.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 21 Dec 2004, 14:14

Chris the fighter wrote:Hope Kelly and Booth do it again, Kelly is very good boxer but not much of a banger he has to relay on his skills. I give credit for him going to South America to fight then IBF champ Pacheco he lost but it was a great effect.

People are saying it was a hiding and he was outclass, I disagree. The ending was pretty one sided - but up untill he started to get hurt, Kelly was holding his own.

I think at 31, Kelly should be looking at a proper world title fight. I think a rematch with Booth (no disrespect to Jason here) would signal that the chances of him getting a world title fight (which is something he has said he wants to do again) is remote.