Derry Mathews v John Simpson - An explanation

[lsg]

The controversy over the scorecards in the Derry Mathews v John Simpson fight has been discussed at length on this forum and there have been many theories as to why the judges arrived at such totals. Many of the posters have made the correct observation that Mathews recieved 118 points and 117 points on 2 of the cards and are quite right to have concerns about this as due to the deductions by referee Mickey Vann it would have been near impossible for Mathews to amass that total. I am in the fortunate position in that I have had the official explanation of what has happened and am happy to share it with you all.

Before I start talking about the fight I feel I must declare that I have a vested interest in Derry Mathews. I ask you to take in good faith however my post as an objective one as I have had plenty of time to investigate and reflect upon events of the weekend.

You are all aware that the 3 judges cards were 118 - 112 , 117 - 111 and 113-111.

I can reveal that the deductions from Derry for fouling indicated by Mickey Vann were only deducted by the WBU from one of the 3 cards (113-111).

As Mathews co-manager I was delighted that he had retained his title and was perfectly satisfied that he had done so but was embarrassed at the wide margin of the scores on 2 of the cards. Neither myself or any of the team could understand how we had won by such a wide margin. Because of this, I telephoned the relevant officials on Monday to ask how the fight had been scored and I was informed of the mishap that had taken place that I alluded to earlier.

The situation is that the judges are to score the rounds exactly as they see it (i.e. effective punches landing on the target area etc). Therefore if Boxer A outboxes Boxer B in a particular round but commits a foul and is deducted a point, the judges scores will still be written as 10-9 in favour of boxer A. The referee (although indicating to all four sides of the ring) is in fact informing the Steward in Charge of the deduction who makes a note of it in the column for penalties. At the end of the fight, the Steward will tally the scorecards giving him the judges totals and will then subtract the number of deducted points accordingly. This was only applied to 1 of the cards on Saturday ( 113-111). I can't tell you why this happened , I can only confirm to you that this IS what happened.

If you subtract the extra point for the knockdown in round 1, the judges cards should have read 115-112 , 114-111 , 113-111 (I have not seen the scorecards yet but I am presuming that Simpson would have been awarded Round 1 by a 10-8 margin).

Even the scoring of round 1 is not cut and dried however as the round was pretty even apart from the knockdown and may only have been scored 10-9 in John's favour as it is not compulsary to award a KD round 10-8( Only Mathews gloves briefly touching the canvas). For what it's worth my own opinion is that the knockdown was a legitimate one and I thought John won the round anyway which is why I allude to it as a 10-8 round to Simpson.

I believe the judges got this one about right in terms of rounds won and lost. I have watched the fight on DVD several times and despite my obvious allegiance to Derry I believe I can still score the fight objectively ( I did this at first because I couldnt understand the scores that were read out). My own tally was 116 -112 in favour of Derry which,with the 2 points deducted still had Mathews in front 114-112.

I gave John Simpson the first round 10-8, Round 3 10-9 and
round 9 10-9. On the night I had it marginally closer but after analysis I believe that by and large Derry won pretty much everything else. I dont mean to patronise the posters on here as the vast majority are extremely well informed and are obviously avid fight fans but I believe that the controversy over the scoring has coloured their opinion about the verdict. I believe the verdict was right but I know for a fact the scoring was wrong.

I respect all the posters on here and their opinions (with the exception of the guy who said he wished Terry Marsh could shoot straight - you sir should be ashamed of yourself). I do however believe that people are swayed by TV commentary. I know this has certainly been true of myself as I remember as a youngster beleiving that Leonard whipped Hagler (Reg and Jim told us he did) convincingly. A friend who disagreed with me asked me to score the fight with the sound turned down. When I did and was concentrating purely on effective work, I saw a different fight.

I think that this applies in Saturday's case also and I will attempt to demonstrate why. I will use as an example round 6 of Simpson v Mathews. I thought Mathews won the round and I did a punch stat by watching the round half a dozen times to confirm my results ( I know I know..... I need to get out more). OUT OF SPACE will cont in reply post.

[lsg]

In Round 6 John landed 2 jabs , 1 very good right hand (after the cuts stoppage) and 2 very good bodyshots in combination early in the round. By comparrison Derry landed 7 good jabs 3 good right crosses one very good body punch and several other punches that although landing were not that effective. The round was a 10-9 round to Mathews all the wayand I am presuming that the judges saw it that way. The referee deducted a point from Mathews in this round for a foul however so this would have been taken off at the final scores tally. Duke McKenzie awarded the round 10-8 to Simpson on his card, I believe because he mistakenly believed this is what happens when a fighter is called for fouling. Even on Dukes card, had this round been scored correctly (effectively 9-9) that would have been 1 extra point to Mathews and 1 point off Simpson which would have seen Mathews retain his title.

I said at the start of this post that I have an interest in Mathews and so I reserved my opinion that he had won the fight until I had chance to speak to some neutral observers. I rang around the guys from the written press and they had it the same as me . Boxing News and one of the guys from Boxing Monthly had scored it virtually identically to myself.
Mathews landed by far the more punches from Round 4 onwards and despite John's heroic efforts in pressing Derry he rarely found the target to register the scoring punch ( I watched the fight several times to satisfy myself of this).We all agreed however that the wrong scores being given out had left many people with raised eyebrows and the suspicion that something untoward had occurred.I hope that this explanation finally puts to rest the suspicion surroundingthe verdict in this fight.

May I end this post by saying what true gentleman John Simpson and Danny Lee are. I had the pleasure to speak to them both this weekend and they are a credit to the sport.

Thank you for reading this post and I would be happy to answer any of your comments.

LEE MALONEY

[states]

Thanks for the explanation.

[m1kee50]

yep, its nice to see some transparency, as it were

[JC]

Yes thanks for taking the time to comment, it's not often you get much feedback on this sort of thing

[chris s]

Fair play to you mate, shame the BBB of Control couldn't have pointed it out.

Good luck with Derry - you've done a good job and gambled at the right time with the Foster fight.

Despite the deductions, there is no dispute over Derry superiority agianst simpson.

[stujones]

Lsg, thanks for taking the time to speak to us about this.

I had the chance to view the fight again, and as I think it was forum member Max Moleynux said - the look on Vann's face when those cards were announced said an awful lot.

I do disagree with the viewpoint that Matthews won the fight, taking into account the point deductions - but can see an argument either way. However, can I ask you lsg if you thought your boy was a tad (well more than a tad, very) lucky to not get DQ'd.

I thought some of his tactics were damn right beyond. I know there is no compasion in boxing and fighters need to go beyond to win - but with the obvious disadvatange Simpson had with the cut, I thought it was very out of order for Derry to continue to hold and hit in the damaged area. He MUST cut it out or he will get thrown out.

When you see what Matthew Hatton did to get thrown out vs Alan Bosworth and compare it to last weekend, well there is no real comparison.

Also, any talk of a rematch - cause clearly there is unfinished business here.

[Les Kendal]

Thanks for the explanation. If the cards had been marked correctly, then there would have been far less controversy.

[WildWaylon]

You seem a decent fair minded guy so how come you work with a nasty cheat? - Deliberate fouling is an attempt to gain an advantage by unfair means which to me is a form of cheating - I would be ashamed that Mathews chose to fight that way if I was you - A good champion with good skills doesnt need to foul to help him win - To say there are others in the game that foul just as bad or even worse as some have said, only serves to excuse Mathews for what he did - I think most of us appreciate your huge effort to explain the scoring although have to say I had Simpson one up and after watching it again I still do - Having said that without the fouls I would have scored it in favour of Mathews - I think a rematch has to to be granted to Simpson because of the circumstances of the win.

[lsg]

Thank you all for taking the time to read my explanation and for your comments. As I said , I am more than happy to answer any points you raise regarding the matter and will visit the site until this thread has dissipated.

Chris S - Thank you for your kind comments sir. I would have liked the official explanation to have been forthcoming at the earliest opportunity and I know the BBBC are in discussion with the WBU over what happened on Saturday night. As nothing official has been released I felt compelled to comment as people should know what actually happened so as not to speculate about something sinister they think may have happened. Thank you again for your kind words.

Stujones - Thank you sir for your feedback . I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the winner here. You know the cliche about it all being subjective. Having viewed the fight a number of times very intently I know for a fact that Derry landed far more shots after round 4 than John (I've counted them like the pathetic anorak that I am). I would concede to you that its not simply about the number of shots (as in amateur boxing) but John never had Derry in trouble (ex Rd1) and the fewer shots that he was landing were not enough to warrant scoring the rounds for him. That is my opinion but I have a vested interest which could influence me which is why I asked around the boxing journo's for their thoughts . I have just read Daniel Herberts piece in Boxing News and he gives Derry everything after round three (for the record I gave Simpson round 9). Your opinion is as valid as any of these however and I respect your stance , but would respectfully have to disagree with you. With regards to a re-match, nothing has been mentioned or suggested. I can't speak for John,Danny or the Morrisson's but I think it is more likely that Andy Morris will be given a re-match with John for the British Title. I think that there are more questions to be answered following their last fight than there are (scoring aside) surrounding this one.

With regards to Derry's minor transgressions of the Marquis of Queensbury's guidelines ( calm down I'm kidding) it is something that was dissapointing to say the least. I would not try and defend Derry fouling and to point out that others in the game have done it is simply not a defense. I would temper my remarks though by saying that every single transgression was made mention of on TV and Mickey Vann failed to warn Simpson about any of the low blows he landed or the fact that he was holding a lot in the second half of the fight himself . I would be lying however if I said I thought Derry fought entirely within the rules throughout the entire course of the fight. Derry did commit fouls and he was rightly punished for them by having points deducted. Disqualification ?? mmm .....not for me , I don't think that would have been warranted at all. The fouling was a persistent annoyance rather than something overtly significant that could dramatically influence the outcome (hitting low persistently or afterthe bell or deliberate butting). I believe it was out of Derry's frustration that things were not going how we forsaw them. That is not to excuse him however, just my reasoning behind his actions. It is something he must learn to curb or further down the line or it will end up costing him dear. Rest asured it is something we will be addressing. Make no mistake by the standards Derry is capable of (as witnessed against Steve Foster ) this was a bad day at the office and I wouldn't try to hide it. It was not pretty but was compelling and Derry beat the current British Champion on a really off nigh so there are positives to take out of the night. Thanks again for your interest.

[lsg]

Thank you for your comments. I understand that you dissaproved of the fouls that Derry did commit during the fight and as I have posted earlier, to simply trot out that others of greater stature (Hatton, Duran to name two) have been guilty of fouls is not a defense. I would ask you for a stay of execution with regards to your attitude towards Derry however. His temperament has been questioned by others in the past but in recent times he has shown much more maturity in his work. Saturday was obviously a step backwards in that regard and his willingness to have a tear-up (and a rough one at that) is something he knows he must controll in order to use his physical advantages. Derry won 7 national titles as a junior , he won the junior olympic gold medal in Detroit and the senior ABA title in his first senior year at 18 years old. You only win those through skill and ability sir and I would refer again to his performance against Steve Foster as a taster of what I believe Derry can become. He cannot continue to fight like he did on Saturday if he is to reach the levels to which he aspires but I honestly believe that 12-18 months down the line Derry will have continued to improve and this fight will be filed in " Good learning fight" category. He is still only 23 and is far from realising he potential I believe he posesses. As regards being ashamed of him, let me tell you on a personal note what I believe. Despite any conclusions you may draw from Saturday , outside the ring Derry is one of the nicest kids I have ever had the pleasure to work with. If you have ever had the good fortune to meet Ricky Hatton you will get an idea what I am talking about. The ring persona and the outside personality are poles apart. I feel proud to be involved in this kids career and feel honoured to count him as a friend. I know that wasnt pretty the other night but give him another chance sir to show his true ability and I am confident you won't be dissapointed. Thanks for your post

[harrygreb]

can i give you some advice? if you dont think mentioning other fighters transgressions is pertinent, please dont mention them. no one else brought roberto duran or ricky hatton or mustapha hamsho or even harry greb into the argument only you did.
i'm a fan of your boy and a fighter of his talent should not so easily take the foul route on an off night or when things are not clicking. there'll be plenty of those nights in his career so tell him - now - to cut it out or those of us who appreciate his skill will lose interest.
give him my best and i look forward to his next fight

[lsg]

You are 100% correct in what you say sir. I wasn't diging out the fighters I mentioned, on the contrary I am a huge fan of both. There will be difficult fights more than once down the line and we will be working with Derry on him retaining his composure and sticking to what he does best. Thanks for your comments and advice, I believe your assessment is spot on.

[lvlarc]

Fairplay to you for coming on here and explaining yourself, I had no probs with Derry being declared the winner on cards albeit by disgusting margins but I strongly disagree with your opinion that a DQ wasn't warranted and his continual fouling may well have had an affect on the outcome. He kept making that cut worse round by round by holding and hitting, headlocks, rubbing his forearm and head against it which most definetly affected Simpson's vision further. Maybe the anorak that you are, you could go back and count the fouls that Matthews got away with, well over 20...


I thought Vann did a poor job, lots of warnings, why so little punishment.. maybe the hostile crowd got to him.

[ThePromoter]

I hope your fighter knocked out asap lsg, theres no room for a talentless thug of his nature in boxing.

Cheat.

[WildWaylon]

Once again, thanks for taking the trouble to explain things - Maybe he is a nice kid out of the ring and without a doubt he has talent and I wouldnt question either - You can be very proud to be associated with workwise/have as a friend someone who has achieved so much and still be ashamed or dissapointed with his behavior on the night - As long as Derry learns from fight fans this isnt the way we want to see him win fights thats more than good enough - Graham Earl had a bad night recently but lost with dignity as a true sportsman - Derry will get tons of respect if win or lose he does so using the skills he quite obviously has - Anyway great PR and fair play to you for being so willing to listen to and answer our comments and questions - Will Simpson be considered for another shot if he wants it? - I think its a rematch most of us would like to see.

[lsg]

lvlarc - Thank you Sir for your observations and comments. I would respectfully disagree with your assessment that Derry should have been DQ'd but I understand and share your frustration with the manner in which Derry fought on Saturday. As I have said before , Derry is capable of so much more. Your argument is plausible in that there were a number of fouls committed but it was not totally one sided in this respect. I accept that Derry was certainly guilty of more transgressions than John but would have to disagree that a disqualification was deserved. I thank you for your opinion however and hope that an improved performance will allow boxing fans such as yourself to see the real talent this kid posesses. Incidently I will count the number of fouls for you at a later time as I will for now be busy re-ordering my video collection into alphabetical order.

The Promoter - Sir , I must disagree with your asessment of Derry as a "talentless thug". Of course none of us were completely happy with the way he boxed on Saturday but I think your dismissal is far too strong. Derry has won numerous top honours in the amateur ranks (see earlier post) and is undefeated as a professional. To suggest he is talentless really doesnt stand up to scrutiny. I understand your dissapointment with Saturday's events but would ask that you give Derry one more viewing before closing your mind to the potential that this kid has. I hope that he can convince you of this next time around.

[lsg]

Wildwaylon - Thank you Sir for your comments and advice they are very much aappreciated. With regards to a re-match, I am really not trying to dodge the question but I am genuinely convinced that Sports Network and the BBBC would seek to grant Andy Morris a shot at the title he lost in a somewhat unsatisfactory manner. I dont know the extent of John's injury (or the progress of Andy's for that matter) but I think that this is the fight that the powers that be will move to make next.

I expect that Derry will defend the WBU title against international opposition whilst a victor will emerge from the Morris / Simpson / Foster trio (two of whom Derry has now beaten). If that person is John Simpson then I am sure that a re-match would be arranged. The same applies to the other two. This could take 6-9 months to unravel however and I would expect Derry to have boxed once or twice by the time a match with any of the aforementioned came about.

To definitively answer your question, Derry beat John in my opinion with a little room to spare on what was an off night for him. If the above scenario is played out and the Simpson re-match was suggested it would certainly be considered. Thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to read my post

[m1kee50]

simpson got a bit of a gift in his last fight, matthews got a bit of a gift in this one, so maybe it all balances out....

[lurkyshaka]

It was good of the author of the thread to come on and explain things as openly as he could....and i would agree that overall Derry Matthew probably just about nicked the fight.

However the bad cut that Simpson suffered certainly affected him and were it not for that then i think Simpson may well have won the fight. Matthew's imo was lucky not to have been DQ'd and if not for the fight being held in Liverpool i think he might have been. He fought a very dirty fight, rubbing his arms and gloves into Simpson's cut was really bad, not too mention as soon as he'd had the second deduction he went and immediatly did the same infringement again....he was lucky that Vann either missed that or chose to ignore it.

[Max Molyneux]

but would ask that you give Derry one more viewing before closing your mind to the potential that this kid has. I hope that he can convince you of this next time around.

I agree, the Simpson fight was a bad one for Derry even though he won. But when I watched him Vs Foster, I definately thought he has talent to go to world level one day.

[Old bones Ian]

Thanks for the explanations lsg.
will your man Derry be taking on Andy Morris anytime soon?
its a class match-up and would sell out in Liverpool or Manchester.
I thought Derry just squeezed home on points last Saturday, but it wasn't a great performance from him, maybe the win over Foster Jnr flattered him a bit.
Derry certainly doesn't lack in self belief though, which is a good thing, but he's got to listen to his trainers and get back to his boxing , and stop trying to look macho and getting dragged into slugging with his opponent.

Oh yeah and PLEASE make the Morris fight.

[lsg]

Thank you Topper for your comments. I think a match between Mathews and Morris will take place eventually. We tried to get Derry a shot at the British Title before he fought Foster but the BBBC mandated Simpson. We took Foster instead for the WBU (after Morris withdrew) rather than wait another 6-9 months and Andy defended against John. The rest is history. As I said earlier, I think that Morris v Simpson III is the most likely match you will see next involving these fighters with Foster possibly to fight the winner.I have no involvement with these boxers however and it is purely my opinion of what I think will happen. I don't think there is much likelyhood of Mathews v Simpson II (because of the match with Morris) , or Mathews v Foster II (because the first fight was so conclusively one sided) in the immediate future. I think if Morris emerges from the British Title shake up as the victor of the three and Derry remains undefeated then I'm sure that the anticipation of a match up between the two will make it happen. I would say however that it would be 3 or 4 fights down the line for both men.

[states]

lsg, you've been good enough to answer every question on this thread, and thank you for that.

I have one question I'd like to ask though: Derry holds the WBU title. Given what you've said in this thread, I can't believe that you consider that a creditable belt, although I'm sure it offers some money-making opportunities. But back to my question: Would you consider putting Derry in a Commonwealth title fight? Because Jackson Asiku looks a very classy fighter. I'm sure you'd back your man, but is there any chance of it happening?

[split_decision]

I think that this applies in Saturday's case also and I will attempt to demonstrate why. I will use as an example round 6 of Simpson v Mathews. I thought Mathews won the round and I did a punch stat by watching the round half a dozen times to confirm my results ( I know I know..... I need to get out more). OUT OF SPACE will cont in reply post.

I've been wanting to ask this question for ages and maybe, as someone close to the sport you may be able to shed a modicum of light on this.
Why Don't ITV show any punchstats AT ALL? As far as I'm aware, as a regular viewer of boxing throughout most of the major english speaking boxing channels, ITV are the only ones I see that don't. Sky, HBO, SHO, ESPN all show the punchstats. Now a cynical person might just say that this is to protect the housefighter when he wins a lopsided decision. It's easier for the commentators to Justify without these numbers, harder to do so when the numbers show he landed 200 punches less. I however am not a cynic and am sure there is a logical explanation. (ps in this example I am by no means suggesting this relates to any fight, fact or fiction at any time ever)

Also would just like to add along with other comments that it is appreciated that someone actually took the time to explain the scoring. This mishap however is not good for the sport, ITV or indeed the WBU, and Derry will not win any fans with displays of constant fouling.

best of luck.