Oliver McCall vs Henry Akinwande

Hellephant · Post by **Hellephant** » 18 Jan 2003, 03:04

Why does it say in the database about Oliver McCall vs Henry Akinwande: "Akinwande clearly ahead on points, knocked out in final round"?
To me it was a very close fight, and both Swedish commentators thought the fight was even before the final round. I just watched the British TV-version, and both of their commentators said that Oliver McCall was AHEAD on points!
So why does it say in the database that "Akinwande clearly ahead on points, knocked out in final round"?

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 18 Jan 2003, 07:41

I personally don't know the scoring of the McCall v. Akinwande fight, but if Akinwande was ahead on points going into the final round, that's important enough to be added as an extra piece of info on the bout. At Boxrec we're only interested in the facts, so whether we agree with the fact that someone is leading on the cards doesn't matter.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 18 Jan 2003, 08:21

hellephant my man, i've tried this before. maybe akinwande was ahead on the SCORECARDS, but in the ring he was well behind and getting broken down.

its boxrecs choice of words: 'CLEARLY ahead' suggests henry was outboxing oliver and cruising to a points win til oliver got lucky.

oliver was breaking up henry from rd 4 onwards, you and i know it, the fight didn't get screened in the US so these guys probably have never seen it. henry was going to get knocked out.

on a side not oliver was behind probably due to the fact him and don king were at war, so don did not want the guy to win.

theres no point posting here boxrec NEVER respond to your posts or change their records even if your info you offer is 100% accurate, like the corrections i have offered over danny williams.

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 18 Jan 2003, 09:08

Hey Overhand, I've changed Audley's height by an entire half inch!!!

brett · Post by **brett** » 18 Jan 2003, 11:23

The comment, as written, is inappropriate. IMO, the word 'clearly' should not be used. It gives the comment the appearance that it is a matter of opinion rather than fact. He either was or was not behind on points at the time. If known, then the scores should have been included.

As to whe ther he was or not; If found this from the Boston Herald
(sorry I could not post the link)

McCall gets up, then drops Akinwande
Fight Notebook/by George Kimball

Sunday, November 18, 2001

LAS VEGAS - Former World Boxing Council champion Oliver McCall knocked out Britain's Henry Akinwande in a matchup of former Lennox Lewis victims on last night's Hasim Rahman-Lewis card at the Mandalay Bay Events Center. Promoter Don King had promised to revive the career of one of the has-been heavyweights, but with a minute left in the fight, it didn't look as though it was going to be McCall. But McCall (39-7), who was trailing by six, five and five points on the cards of the three ringside judges, landed an overhand right flush to the jaw, dropping his exhausted foe on the floor.

Akinwande (40-2-1) had spent the first four rounds slapping the Atomic Bull around the ring, dominating so thoroughly that at one point trainer Richie Giachetti threatened to stop the fight between rounds. McCall revived somewhat thereafter, and with less than a minute left, drilled Akinwande, who was counted out by referee Kenny Bayless at 2:13 of the 10th.

So, provided Mr. Kimball was given accurate information (I would think this qualifies as a reliable source), then the comment should be changed.
I will be happy to change it unless anyone can prove otherwise why I should not.

Regards,

Brett

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 18 Jan 2003, 11:37

IMO the word "clearly" only suggests that Akinwande lead by a wide margin, which is backed up by facts. But if people read the word as being the opinion of one of the editors, then it should be deleted.

Ric · Post by **Ric** » 18 Jan 2003, 12:22

A simple and accurate fix would be to say this instead of "clearly":
McCall was trailing by six, five and five points on the cards of the three ringside judges before the knockout.

Hellephant · Post by **Hellephant** » 18 Jan 2003, 12:58

If it's a fact that Akinwande was leading on the scorecards, then it's also a fact that those scorecards were controversial. If you look at boxrec's information today, you get the impression that Oliver McCall got lucky, and that is SO WRONG.
Either completely remove the comment, or ad that those scorecards were controversial.

Hellephant · Post by **Hellephant** » 18 Jan 2003, 13:34

The best thing would be to remove the comment completely. If it was true that Akinwande was winning the fight before the KO, then the scorecards information would be valid. But now, it's unavoidable that the information will give the wrong impression of the fight. No one wants that.

Grey · Post by **Grey** » 18 Jan 2003, 13:44

Agreed, I just got rid of the comment.

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 21 Jan 2003, 08:17

Don't agree with you Grey. I think the fact that Akinwande was leading on the cards going into the final round is important enough to be added.
Deleting such a comment is like saying "we don't agree with the scorecards and therefore we dont' mention them" and THAT is opinionated. I personally haven't seen the first Louis-Conn fight, but if I
( or some other editor) happen to disagree with the scoring should the FACT that Louis was behind on points and in danger of losing the title not be mentioned? Ofcourse not, it tells the story of the fight as it was.
Just as McCall was in danger of losing the fight tells the story of his fight with Akinwande. Therefore it's vital info that SHOULD be included in the discription of the fight.

Hellephant · Post by **Hellephant** » 21 Jan 2003, 11:32

You don't understand wouter.
It is interesting that McCall was behind on the scorecards. But it would be unavoidable that the scorecard information would give the wrong impression of the fight.
The question is what is more important in the long run? People who haven't seen the fight will in the future come here to boxrec and get an impression of the fight.
Boxrec has to be responsible and try to avoid giving wrong pictures of fights. That's why it is the right thing to not have the scorecard information this time. Not because it's not interesting, but because it gives people the wrong idea.
I'm sorry that my English su**....

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 21 Jan 2003, 13:19

Totally disagree.

As record keepers we report the facts, not interpret them. Fact is Akinwande was ahead on the official scorecards. You and others believe that was unjust, that is your opinion. Your opinion is not a fact.

Besides, the fact that the Akinwande was ahead on the scorecards, and they were "controversial" is irrelevant, McCall won by knockout. Readers should be smart enough to see that.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 21 Jan 2003, 17:11

tegenm wrote:Totally disagree.

As record keepers we report the facts, not interpret them. Fact is Akinwande was ahead on the official scorecards. You and others believe that was unjust, that is your opinion. Your opinion is not a fact.

Besides, the fact that the Akinwande was ahead on the scorecards, and they were "controversial" is irrelevant, McCall won by knockout. Readers should be smart enough to see that.

its not an opinion that mccall was winning. he WAS winning.

akinwande was in deep trouble, and he is not very good as disguising his emotions, as well know.

leaving the comment there gives the impression oliver was dominated but then got lucky. this was not the case.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 21 Jan 2003, 20:31

No it is your opinion that he was winning, which differs obviously from the judges at the very least. The scorecards showed that Akinwande was ahead, which is a fact. Facts can be proven with documentation. Your belief that McCall is winning, is just that an opinion. People can interpret facts anyway they want, to make a conclusion.

Hellephant · Post by **Hellephant** » 21 Jan 2003, 22:18

So tegenm, why do boxrec sometimes ad a comment that says a decision was controversial?
Please explain!

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 21 Jan 2003, 22:36

Because most people would believe controversy is relevant in decisions. Do you think most people think controversy regarding scorecards, of a bout that ended in KO are relevant?

When there is a controversial stoppage it is noted often times, becuase that is relevant to a KO or TKO. Scorecard controversy is not.

Hellephant · Post by **Hellephant** » 22 Jan 2003, 10:18

tegenm wrote:Because most people would believe controversy is relevant in decisions. Do you think most people think controversy regarding scorecards, of a bout that ended in KO are relevant?

Off course it's relevant.

We who love boxing gets excited when two fighters get into the ring. What will happen? Who will do what?
When we who love boxing sees that Henry Akinwande will fight Oliver McCall, we immediately start thinking: "Will that tall Akinwande use his jab and win an easy decision against the crazy McCall?"

Then when we who love boxing goes to boxrec and reads that "Oliver McCall won by KO, but he was down on the scorecards by six, five and five points", we think: "My god, that crazy Oliver McCall got lucky, Akinwande did dominate him until the KO"

But if the kind people at boxrec would ad a little comment saying that the scorecards were controversial, then we who love boxing don't have to walk around the world with the wrong idea of great matchups.

But it's kind of silly to have a comment saying that the scorecards were controversial, when the fight never went to the scorecards. That's why the sensible, mature, responsible and conscious people at boxrec makes the right decision and removes the information about the silly scorecards.

In the year 2028 a little boy who loves boxing sees a documentary of Lennox Lewis on the TV. It's a good documentary, the boy gets to see all of Lennox fights. After the documentary the boy goes to his father and talks about how great Lennox Lewis was, he also mentions to his father about that crazy Oliver McCall and the tall Henry Akinwande. The boy's father says that he thinks that McCall and Akinwande actually once fought each other, but he can't remember what happened.
The little boy gets excited and runs to the computer. The boy loves boxing and wonders "Did that tall Akinwande use his jab and did he win an easy decision against the crazy McCall?"
The boy then goes to boxrec to find out what happened, WHAT WE DON'T NEED THEN IS THOSE fornicating SILLY SHIT DON KING SCORECARDS.........

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 22 Jan 2003, 10:40

WHAT WE DON'T NEED THEN IS THOSE fornicating SILLY SHIT DON KING SCORECARDS.........

Well, as long as they're part of boxing, it's a record keeper's to report on them. We're not trying to be boxing REFORMERS here.
I also think we should get rid of the extra comments of World Title next to WBA, WBC etc. , that can be found on Lennox Lewis' record for example. Just whose world is that?

Grey · Post by **Grey** » 22 Jan 2003, 22:06

Clearly if you're going to leave a part of the comment it should be "Akinwande was ahead on the scorecards at the time of KO", because that is a FACT, it's TRUE. "McCall was winning at the time of stoppage" is a INTERPRETATION, I don't think opinions belong in the comments field. Like Matt said, if you going to comment on the fight, it needs to be a fact. Our job is to report the information, not interpret it. I have no problem putting a comment, I want to keep it blank until we can resolve on something.

Now obviously I'm being a hypocrite when I put 'disputed decision' on a fight, but is that another story? :)

BDS · Post by **BDS** » 22 Jan 2003, 23:39

Yeah, but if you would put disputed decision it wouldn't neccessarily be an interpretation. If the general concsenous is that the other guy won and/or a good portion of the people scoring it had the other guy winning, then it's not your interpretation right?

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 23 Jan 2003, 07:38

I think a comment like "Akinwande was ahead on the scorecards" is appropiate and should be added.