States - Thank you sir for your kind words. Jackson Asiku is an excellent fighter and although I have only seen him box twice (Callaghan and McKeever) I couldnt fail to be impressed. I have been totally honest with you all throughout this thread so I am not going to try and kid you now either.
I think that Jackson is a little bit ahead of Derry in terms of physical development and in terms of career experience. Derry is 23 years old and is in his fourth year as a pro. Jackson is 28 years old and has been a pro for 7 years. Similarly Britain's world class featherweight Nicky Cook is 27 years old and has been a pro for a comparable time. I honestly believe that Derry compares favourably with both boxers if you examine the level they were at the same stage in their careers. At that stage Jackson had won the WBO Pacific Title and would go on later that year to lose a unaninous decision to Nedal Hussein. Nicky had just won the WBF Intercontinental title and would later face his first real acid test against Gary Thornhill. If you remember that fight, Cook outboxed Thornhill early on but the strength of the more mature fighter begun to come through and he was bullying Nicky a little bit. Nicky sucked it up and produced a brilliant rally that turned the fight his way and gave notice of the class act that the kid was destined to be. This game is often a matter of timing (i.e the right fights at the right time). With some boxers who do not possess an array of skills but are physically mature you can push them on quicker because you know that they will not increase their chances of success by waiting around. Jess Harding did not try and throw Nicky in with a Scott Harrison or a Wayne McCullough after the Thornhill fight because he knew that as Nicky matured and gained experience he would get better and better until he reached the level that those fighters were at. Now you would fancy him against any of them. Derry Mathews has skills to burn but is still developing physically and needs to work on his composure and mental attitude. But the kid has everything going for him in terms of ability and the other things are just a case of time and hard work. As time goes by Derry will get stronger and stronger and will become more mature in his performances. I am convinced that Derry will be a better fighter than Jackson Asiku but he is still developing. If they were fighting tommorrow I would back Derry and of course I am going to say that but I believe that on top form there are few around who will beat him. At this point however it would not be the right fight at the right time for Derry. The thing you should also consider here is that Jackson doesnt sell a ticket and as such hasn't boxed in nearly a year. Derry sells out Liverpool in 3 weeks. You have to ask yourself , who needs who here? I am sure the fight may happen some time down the line but it won't be in the next 12 months. Sorry to dissapoint, I know its an attractive match-up but my job is to look after Derry Mathews and a fight with Jackson for the Commonwealth Title just doesnt make economic sense. Thank you for your comments and thank you for taking the time to read my post.
Derry Mathews v John Simpson - An explanation
split_decision - In response
Split_decision - The short answer sir is that I don't know. Only sky sports and ITV show live boxing produced in the UK on a regular basis. When the BBC was showing boxing I don't think they did punchstats either.
I actually know one of the guys (Hi Dave if you are out there) who does the punch stats for Sky. I dont know if it is their equipment/software or it is Sky's own. Basically you have 2 guys with what appear to be Sony Playstation type controllers. Each takes a boxer and then presses one of the buttons each time a shot is thrown/landed to head/body etc.
Maybe they are contracted to Sky?? Maybe ITV dont think the stats are relative?? I can't really say because I am not privvy to TV production meetings. I will tell you one thing though, I wish there had been an official punchstat done last Saturday . I sat through the fight on DVD (several times) and did one and believe me Derry outscored John on a 3:2 or 2:1 ratio in most of the rounds on punches landed. This would certainly have helped our cause even with the wrong bleedin' scores being read out. It's not that ITV chose not to show the punchstats, they dont actually have anybody there counting them as far as I know.
It's healthy to be cynical, thats ok, but you need to understand something about how the game works. TV companies don't try and protect fighters really, they just want good fights and entertainment. If they could get an Earl v Katsidis every week they would jump at it and they really wouldn't give a hoot who won and lost. They have an interest of course in building profiles as this builds the anticipation of a major bout and increases viewing figures. As broadcasters however they would not in my opinion be party to something like deliberately not showing the stats to protect the house fighter, thats a bit too much of a stretch (even in boxing). It is evil manager/promoter types such as myself who protect fighters (ha ha). Seriously though, I dont know if you saw the telecast of Mathews v Simpson but if you did I think you will agree that from TV's point of view the event was all about Derry Mathews. ITV's co-commentator scored the fight (wrongly in my opinion) for John Simpson. I know you say you have no particular fight in mind but lets face it , your theory doesnt stand up to scrutiny against this particular one as the punchstats would have been heavily in Derry's favour and ITV don't show them.
Thank you sir for your interest and remember ............ You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you. Best wishes Lee Maloney
I actually know one of the guys (Hi Dave if you are out there) who does the punch stats for Sky. I dont know if it is their equipment/software or it is Sky's own. Basically you have 2 guys with what appear to be Sony Playstation type controllers. Each takes a boxer and then presses one of the buttons each time a shot is thrown/landed to head/body etc.
Maybe they are contracted to Sky?? Maybe ITV dont think the stats are relative?? I can't really say because I am not privvy to TV production meetings. I will tell you one thing though, I wish there had been an official punchstat done last Saturday . I sat through the fight on DVD (several times) and did one and believe me Derry outscored John on a 3:2 or 2:1 ratio in most of the rounds on punches landed. This would certainly have helped our cause even with the wrong bleedin' scores being read out. It's not that ITV chose not to show the punchstats, they dont actually have anybody there counting them as far as I know.
It's healthy to be cynical, thats ok, but you need to understand something about how the game works. TV companies don't try and protect fighters really, they just want good fights and entertainment. If they could get an Earl v Katsidis every week they would jump at it and they really wouldn't give a hoot who won and lost. They have an interest of course in building profiles as this builds the anticipation of a major bout and increases viewing figures. As broadcasters however they would not in my opinion be party to something like deliberately not showing the stats to protect the house fighter, thats a bit too much of a stretch (even in boxing). It is evil manager/promoter types such as myself who protect fighters (ha ha). Seriously though, I dont know if you saw the telecast of Mathews v Simpson but if you did I think you will agree that from TV's point of view the event was all about Derry Mathews. ITV's co-commentator scored the fight (wrongly in my opinion) for John Simpson. I know you say you have no particular fight in mind but lets face it , your theory doesnt stand up to scrutiny against this particular one as the punchstats would have been heavily in Derry's favour and ITV don't show them.
Thank you sir for your interest and remember ............ You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you. Best wishes Lee Maloney
One curious thing about the scoring is that TWO judges made the same mistake of not deducting the points.
To me that would suggest that the judges discussed the matter.
Two questions I wonder if anyone knows the answers.
Do the judges sit next to each other?
Are they allowed to talk during the fight?
I thought that Simpson nicked it but I accept the point about the commentry. It was certainly a close fight.
To me that would suggest that the judges discussed the matter.
Two questions I wonder if anyone knows the answers.
Do the judges sit next to each other?
Are they allowed to talk during the fight?
I thought that Simpson nicked it but I accept the point about the commentry. It was certainly a close fight.
Strathman - In response
Strathman - Thank you for your comments sir.
The judges sit on raised chairs (like bar stools) on three sides of the ring and the supervisor will sit on the fourth side of the ring.
The judges are not allowed to confer with anybody at all (including each other) during the fight. The only person they can have any verbal contact with is the referee.
At the end of each round, the judges will write the score of that round on a slip and the referee will collect the three slips from the judges. The referee will then hand the three slips to the supervisor who will record the scores on to the scoresheet. (Note the earlier post : the judges do not deduct points for fouls, they just score the rounds as they see them). The supervisor will total the scores at the end of the contest and will then deduct any points that the referee has indicated for fouls giving him the final scores.
The judges sit on raised chairs (like bar stools) on three sides of the ring and the supervisor will sit on the fourth side of the ring.
The judges are not allowed to confer with anybody at all (including each other) during the fight. The only person they can have any verbal contact with is the referee.
At the end of each round, the judges will write the score of that round on a slip and the referee will collect the three slips from the judges. The referee will then hand the three slips to the supervisor who will record the scores on to the scoresheet. (Note the earlier post : the judges do not deduct points for fouls, they just score the rounds as they see them). The supervisor will total the scores at the end of the contest and will then deduct any points that the referee has indicated for fouls giving him the final scores.
AFAIK the judges all sit in a row (i was at a commonwealth title fight and thats what they did) as for talking to eachother - i did not notice i was watching a guy get spanked....STRATHMAN wrote:One curious thing about the scoring is that TWO judges made the same mistake of not deducting the points.
To me that would suggest that the judges discussed the matter.
Two questions I wonder if anyone knows the answers.
Do the judges sit next to each other?
Are they allowed to talk during the fight?
I thought that Simpson nicked it but I accept the point about the commentry. It was certainly a close fight.