VIPBoxing News

[Stegsie]

Taken from http://www.vipboxing.com/news/

Judges, Not Smith, Take Quigleys Title

Last Friday was another sad night for British boxing when once again poor scoring lost a British Champion his belt. Paul Smith had talked a lot in the build up to this fight about how Quigley would run and that he could not punch – the contest was actually the opposite – without Quigley there would not have been a fight. For 10 rounds it was the champion who was forcing the fight and the stats show he threw the most and landed the most punches and where he was never hurt it was clear that Smith was shaken on at least 2 occasions. Paul Smith did force the fight in the 12th Round when Tony was knackered and also for the last minute in the Eleventh following a low blow , does a good 4 minutes win you a title fight ???? – it seems the days of where a challenger had to rip the title from a Champion have gone !!!

Both fighters did under perform and Tony accepts that he did not do himself justice, but at only fifty percent he knows he still won the fight . He does not have a mark on him and would love the rematch that an embarrassed allegedly announced in the ring immediately after the fight , only to state in the press conference 15 minutes later that ‘maybe there will be a rematch’ – Team Quigley are not holding there breath on this one and will be looking to force their way back into a mandatory position.

The Boxing board really need to look at these scoring issues and order an immediate rematch.

[alexpaterson]

I had Smith winning 115-113 it wasnt a robbery but a very close fight that could of gone either way. I too think there should be a rematch

[15829]

that made me laugh, how was that a robbery smigga deserved the descion and frank w arren already said there would be a rematch. smith wasnt at his best so will make his win more emphatic, the echo had it 115-116 smith

[sweetscience]

could have gone either way....defo dont want to see a rematch thou

[Black Sam Bellamy]

Stegsie...care to comment on Quigley's constant holding ? Two moderate domestic-level operators.

[danieljenkins]

i was at the fight and supporting tony but i didnt think he won the fight

[Captain Hook]

I had Quigley by one, but agree it could have gone either way.

[DavidPayne]

I had it 117-114 for Quigley. I was watching on the sofa so I know the old cliche will be dragged out that I was influenced by Watt and co.

I couldn't argue too much with the decision having re-read my own round by round notes, as 2-3 of the rounds I gave to Quigley were very, very close.

But Smith was going backwards ALL night, well 4 minutes aside, so I have some sympathy for Quigley.

Round by Round; Live

[STEVE WOOD]

I did not score on the night but had a constant stream of texts from boxing people stating Tony was winning easy . When I watched it back on Sky late Sunday I had a card very close to what David scored it , the only major difference was the first round where I scored it Nil- Nil .

The pressure on both kids was massive and it shown in both the performances , but I agree with the old saying that a challenger needs to take the title of the champion and in this case he did not. I am sure if it happens , a rematch would bring a much better and explosive contest

There have been many worse decisions but that does not make it right.

STEVE WOOD

[jonny]

any chance of getting to see the score cards from anywhere. I had Smith winning but alot of rounds were close. Not a robbery had it gone either way

[Lightsoot]

Can anyone explain to me where the ridiculous and unfounded notion that "the challenger has to rip away the champion's title" came about? Is this rhetoric contained anywhere within the BBBofC's fine print? Surely, the challenger simply has to win more rounds on the judges scorecards than the champion? If the challenger knicks 7 rounds closely and the champion wins 5 rounds clearly then according to the Board's rules the challenger wins the title, right??

I haven't got round to watching Quigley-Smith yet and when I have I'll post my score.