BoxRec

Buncey wrote:Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.

A big fan Buncey, but ironically given the title of the thread, you reallly have let yourself down here, especially in light of the huge support that's been shown towards you by some of those very same posters in the past. That statement constitutes a real insult to their intelligence and their genuine strength of feeling on this matter.

Hagler2002 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:I've seen some robbery's in my time as a boxing fan over the last 25yrs, this was not one of them! I was at the fight and thought Froch as champion done enough to retain the belt in what was overall was a very poor fight, I'm yet to watch it on TV but in all honesty I'm with Bunce on this one, the challenger did not do enough to win the belt in the champions backyard.

Can you explain to me please where it states in the rules of the sport, that the challenger has to do 'extra' to win.

There isn't any rule as you fine well know but you should also know that its common knowledge within the sport that the challenger has to go and win the belt quite convincingly when fighting in the champions backyard bottom line is Dirrell didn't achieve this with his negativity and constant spoiling.

indeed i think it was highlighted with the bodyslam and the point deduction, there was also the taunting with the tounge was no means a robbery could of gone either way

Terry D wrote:'Taking the title away' is complete nonsense.

Oh it's far from nonsense

Deserter wrote:

Buncey wrote:Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.

A big fan Buncey, but ironically given the title of the thread, you reallly have let yourself down here, especially in light of the huge support that's been shown towards you by some of those very same posters in the past. That statement constitutes a real insult to their intelligence and their genuine strength of feeling on this matter.

Exactly. For a so-called 'man of the people', Bunce often displays quite a bit of arrogance and a 'bow to me disciples' attitude whenever he posts. Kind of strange really, especially when the Boxrec forum made up the entire viewership for his Boxing Hour on Setanta

Terry D wrote:'Taking the title away' is complete nonsense. You score it round-by-round and do not allow the reading of the previous round to give one guy the head start in the next round, something that everyone is guilty of at times. Your card is the RBR and your mind gives the overall view of the fight, usually the two things tally when you sit down at the end of the night.

I agree with James, the champion should not be given a head start. I disagree with his belief that Dirrell won this one but that is his opinion and he is entitled to it, he also expresses it in a very good way. This wasnot a robbery, it was just a highly-relative contest.

Thanks Terrence, I'm bamboozled by your opinion, but you're not trying to lord it over anyone, or coming out with any claptrap about 'champions bonus' and that's fair enough.

I guess I can agree it wasn't a robbery, I just cannot see any logical reason to give it to Froch by the criteria for scoring fights as I understandf them.

With regard to your comments, often the overall impression of who won, and who won when you score it are quite different in my experience.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Terry D wrote:' coming out with any claptrap about 'champions bonus' and that's fair enough.

How is it "claptrap" its not right but you're going on as if it's a urban myth

Hagler2002 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Terry D wrote:' coming out with any claptrap about 'champions bonus' and that's fair enough.

How is it "claptrap" its not right but you're going on as if it's a urban myth

I am saying claptrap, as you are talking about it like it's a legitimate scoring criteria. Just because it happens doesn't make it part of the sport, no more than saying that people throwing football matches is 'part of the sport' it's part of human weakness and susceptibility to influence from crowds, promoters and atmospheres.

Eraserhead wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Buncey wrote:Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.

A big fan Buncey, but ironically given the title of the thread, you reallly have let yourself down here, especially in light of the huge support that's been shown towards you by some of those very same posters in the past. That statement constitutes a real insult to their intelligence and their genuine strength of feeling on this matter.

Exactly. For a so-called 'man of the people', Bunce often displays quite a bit of arrogance and a 'bow to me disciples' attitude whenever he posts. Kind of strange really, especially when the Boxrec forum made up the entire viewership for his Boxing Hour on Setanta

Saying stuff like that, exposes you as a hater with an agenda. So don't pretend to be one of the fans who was a supporter of his show or campaign. And don't try and belittle what he has achieved in the game. The fact here is that you cannot cry wolf at Bunce if he is defending himself and his credibility, he was the one who was getting slagged off as towing the party line, selling out etc...personal insults...so if you can dish it out, then man up and take it on the chin if Bunce decides to bite back. Don't gurn that Bunce is arrogant and has an attitude etc. Re-read your own posts if you want to find a fit for that profile.

One more point. If you read what respected journalists and commentators have said on the verdict of the Froch-Dirrel fight, i.e. Graham Houston, Kevin Mitchell, Dan Rafael et al, they all concur that this was no robbery and would agree with Bunce's call. Quite honestly, I find it appalling that there are bunch of posters here who feel it is fair game to throw insults at a man that takes his time to come on here and interact and then get a wet one when he decides that he aint going to accept personal insults. This kind of sh*t drives members of the boxing trade off these websites.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I am saying claptrap, as you are talking about it like it's a legitimate scoring criteria. Just because it happens doesn't make it part of the sport, no more than saying that people throwing football matches is 'part of the sport' it's part of human weakness and susceptibility to influence from crowds, promoters and atmospheres.

I think the bit were I said "its not right" sort of gives it away that I don't class it as a "legitimate scoring criteria"

aren't some of you getting a bit high and mighty with bunce?

giving him an advantage to talk about his bollocks that have to be carried in a wheelbarrow ("the real story of the fight").

can't we just take measurements and compare, stevo? (and get free ticket, train & bus fares?)

it's not like most ppl think dirrell won between 9 and 12 rds. most seem to have it 7-5 either way, or even, taking into account the point taken from dirrell.

dirrell blew it on a massive night for him and potentially a massive night for boxing. he didn't have the appetite for it and he paid for it.

BTW we all know it is a reality that the home fighter often gets the benefit of the doubt. the home fighter, the star fighter, etc etc.

Autobarn wrote:
BTW we all know it is a reality that the home fighter often gets the benefit of the doubt. the home fighter, the star fighter, etc etc.

Just wait till the self opinionated bigot 'jamesmcdonnell' gets his teeth stuck into that statement

This was Vivek Wallace's view of the fight which i think is a much better account then Dan Raphael's.

I predicted Froch would win the fight, but I take no such credit in his victory at all based on the way he did it. When I score a fight, to give myself a better understanding in the case of possible foul play, I use dual-scoring. On one card, I actually give the favorite (or the hometown fighter) all of the close rounds, and on the other, I do things more practical. Odd tactic, but it helps me to understand the logic in most fights. On my score card for the favorite (who in this case happened to be the hometown fighter as well) I had Froch still losing by a round; and on the other, I had him losing by what would have been three rounds had it not been for the deducted point. For the record, I score based on cleaner punches landed, primarily, because aggression isn't effective if you aren't connecting, which is the fundamental principle of the sport. So, to consider the fact that I practically gave him the super close rounds and still had him losing on my card(s) was not a good sign for a guy I actually predicted would win. I won't go on a limb and yell robbery like some, but no question, no doubt, Froch lost that fight. And to see him continuously hit behind the back of the head and subsequently throw an opponent down (which was a frustration move because Dirrell wouldn't slug it out like he wanted) was truly classless. Boxing is an odd sport in a sense that there are unwritten rules that affect the scoring and there's no way to isolate it from happening. Guys like Hatton and Vitali-K have used the constant 'tying up' method for years, but it never resulted in a point being deducted or them not winning close rounds as a result. Dirrell used that strategy (which I don't support) but basically had judges score against him, feeling the other guy was more effective when he really wasn't. Bottomline, I picked Froch to win, but I had him losing, clearly. He won a fan in me after the Taylor fight, but with his classless antics against Dirrell, that has quickly changed.

Hagler2002 wrote:

Autobarn wrote:
BTW we all know it is a reality that the home fighter often gets the benefit of the doubt. the home fighter, the star fighter, etc etc.

Just wait till the self opinionated bigot 'jamesmcdonnell' gets his teeth stuck into that statement

this is how it starts james....... .......press it again why don't you you tit. You should live under a fcking bridge troll, you probably do already.

ender77 wrote: a lot of what of being said in this thread is just pure bullshit and just people showing disrespect.

last week Michael Hunter got dissed to sh*t as either shot.....crap.....one dimensional.....never any good to begin with...a quit job, the list is endless........apparently he deserves no merit WHATSOEVER according to some "highly qualified" to say ( ) tossers on this forum.......and that came about solely by making a case for him in a fight for a belt he owns outright already........realistically Bunce hasn't got a fckin chance.
This said I didn't see the fight but Barbadian "J" , along with plenty of others, tells us that Dirrell was better in every department and that's enough for me.

I can't believe how harsh some are being on Buncey. I was ringside and I gave it to Dirrell by one point, having scored two rounds level. But I was virtually alone. One person made it a draw, most had Froch a narrow winner and some had it to Froch big. It was a very difficult fight to score, some rounds were so close. I felt Dirrell lost most of the sympathy by his constant complaining to the ref and falling to the floor.

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

ender77 wrote: a lot of what of being said in this thread is just pure bullshit and just people showing disrespect.

last week Michael Hunter got dissed to sh*t as either shot.....crap.....one dimensional.....never any good to begin with...a quit job, the list is endless........apparently he deserves no merit WHATSOEVER according to some "highly qualified" to say ( ) tossers on this forum.......and that came about solely by making a case for him in a fight for a belt he owns outright already........realistically Bunce hasn't got a fckin chance.
This said I didn't see the fight but Barbadian "J" , along with plenty of others, tells us that Dirrell was better in every department and that's enough for me.

bollox, it was you who blew hunters trumpet..therefore leaving yourself wide open for a big fall, and all of the stick hunter took was proven to be right.

the end of the hunter fight was the worst scenario for you....you must have thought 'oh shit' because we were all bang on the button.

if you hoist your regimental colours too high in battle, they will get shot down.....and yours crashed and burnt !!

so stop slagging the posters off who proved you wrong, and go and take a long hard look in the mirror !!!

RLewis wrote:I can't believe how harsh some are being on Buncey. I was ringside and I gave it to Dirrell by one point, having scored two rounds level. But I was virtually alone. One person made it a draw, most had Froch a narrow winner and some had it to Froch big. It was a very difficult fight to score, some rounds were so close. I felt Dirrell lost most of the sympathy by his constant complaining to the ref and falling to the floor.

I blame the sub editor!!

Terry D wrote:They've all got some way to go before they beat Ali-Norton III, which can start epic debates all these years down the line.

Norton got screwed in that one big time and is right up there with Roy Jones in the Olympics.

I like that line about the colours....

But...

not all of the stick Hunter took was proven to be right. Events that took place against previous opponents and are now history weren't somehow proven anything on Friday.

2..and this is important now, so listen up...Hunter fight "the worst scenario for me"...this is a joke commet pal. I merely tipped Hunter to win the fight based on previous, and also said I wanted him to win, based on regional, historic and other allegiances. I LITERALLY don't give a sh*t what you, Hagler or Pocketrocket think of me....Hagler is a bitter old bloated bum that takes a pop at a different person with each passing week......he started working his lip to me over nothing, nothing he knows anything about anyway

Since when does tipping a fighter or saying you want him to win leave you open for a big fall??....like boxing news, I even said I didn't know what Hunter had left, but if he was his old self he'd have beaten Booth....fact is he was 20% of his old self, if that!

A long hard look in the mirror eh??...All my posts were qualified with one explanation or another, even if it turned out I was wrong about what Hunter had left in the tank. You just came across, and you were by no means the only one, as an insulting idiot totally depriving Michael Hunter of any credit WHATSOEVER for his WHOLE career, and that indicates what sort of a poster you are.

End of the day, like the Hunter Pickering fight, you were supposedly rooting for Pickering on, you weren't there on Friday, where as I was......and I'm on record as saying I'm a fan of Booth's skills and attitude on this very site from at least 2 years ago....I just happened to want Hunter to win on Friday after what he has done for Boxing in my region amongst other factors you know jack about.

I witnessed a fantastic display of boxing on Friday from JB from, ooh, 10 yards away, while you were sat on here like a bum masturbating over the fact I miscalled a fight and salivating like a wan*er at the prospect of my return to the forum. And for that reason, I've put you on ignore.

gasman wrote: Saying stuff like that, exposes you as a hater with an agenda. So don't pretend to be one of the fans who was a supporter of his show or campaign. And don't try and belittle what he has achieved in the game. The fact here is that you cannot cry wolf at Bunce if he is defending himself and his credibility, he was the one who was getting slagged off as towing the party line, selling out etc...personal insults...so if you can dish it out, then man up and take it on the chin if Bunce decides to bite back. Don't gurn that Bunce is arrogant and has an attitude etc. Re-read your own posts if you want to find a fit for that profile.

One more point. If you read what respected journalists and commentators have said on the verdict of the Froch-Dirrel fight, i.e. Graham Houston, Kevin Mitchell, Dan Rafael et al, they all concur that this was no robbery and would agree with Bunce's call. Quite honestly, I find it appalling that there are bunch of posters here who feel it is fair game to throw insults at a man that takes his time to come on here and interact and then get a wet one when he decides that he aint going to accept personal insults. This kind of sh*t drives members of the boxing trade off these websites.

Fella, not sure how much of that was aimed at my original post, but just to clarify my stance. I'm not in any way, shape or form condoning those posts that have been outright insulting towards Buncey, when I wrote that I was thinking of the articulate sentiments expressed by certain posters (James and Phenomenal Nutrition immediately spring to mind).
Anyone who checks my post history will see I've been a Bunce fan, but on this occasion while I think the majority of his response was perfectly valid, I do think that particular element was a 'cheap shot', and an unfounded one at that. Given the overall history of support for him on this forum I thought it was disappointing and misguided. Nothing more and nothing less.
I think it's also worth recognising that even with those posters who've strayed over the line in terms of insults etc, I think in part it's driven by a frustration in that among a sea of largely anonymous commentators Buncey has been seen as 'one of us' by them - someone who's clearly hugely passionate about the sport and has a reputation for telling it like it is. Therefore, the sense of disappointment when they feel he's towed the party line (in terms of tailoring his comments because of his employer), is bound to be exaggerated - look at the reaction of footie fans when the star of the club leaves for a rival as a crude analogy.
Again, I'm not saying they're justified or even right in their perception, but I think it's crucial to identify the 'drivers' behind such posts, as in contrast to Buncey I don't believe jealousy regarding his position was remotely a factor.

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:

Autobarn wrote:
BTW we all know it is a reality that the home fighter often gets the benefit of the doubt. the home fighter, the star fighter, etc etc.

Just wait till the self opinionated bigot 'jamesmcdonnell' gets his teeth stuck into that statement

this is how it starts james....... .......press it again why don't you you tit. You should live under a fcking bridge troll, you probably do already.

The Hunter result still bothering you? now go and stalk someone else you irritating fcking gobshite.

[quote="Buncey"]Shafted, robbery, disgrace, sold-out, failed to pipe up. You all need to get out more.
The reason that I never piped up and sold out by refusing to talk about the robbery, shafting disgrace is because I didn't think it was a robbery, shafting disgrace.
There is no scandal: Dirrell gets it by a round, Carl by two or a draw. Where is the fix, the robbery, the scandal?
Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.
Now if you brave warriors want to have a go at me, let me know and I will have ticket - a freebie - for you to attend one of my live shows and you can get up and we can all get a look at the size of your nuts. Don't worry, I will bring a magnifying glass.
This thread is starting to be very disrespectful of Carl Froch, when really it is an attack on me.
For one free ticket per set of tiny gonads: [email protected]

Adios.[/quote

F*ck'em Buncey, I totally aggree with you.....THERE WAS NO ROBBERY!!!

teddy007 wrote:

Buncey wrote:Shafted, robbery, disgrace, sold-out, failed to pipe up. You all need to get out more.
The reason that I never piped up and sold out by refusing to talk about the robbery, shafting disgrace is because I didn't think it was a robbery, shafting disgrace.
There is no scandal: Dirrell gets it by a round, Carl by two or a draw. Where is the fix, the robbery, the scandal?
Or, is there something else at work here? The old jealous of the bald, fat, cockanee geezer? Do I see that old chesnut in this thread? I think I do.
Now if you brave warriors want to have a go at me, let me know and I will have ticket - a freebie - for you to attend one of my live shows and you can get up and we can all get a look at the size of your nuts. Don't worry, I will bring a magnifying glass.
This thread is starting to be very disrespectful of Carl Froch, when really it is an attack on me.
For one free ticket per set of tiny gonads: [email protected]

Adios.[/quote

F*ck'em Buncey, I totally aggree with you.....THERE WAS NO ROBBERY!!!

I don't think any/many think that it comes into the "robbery" category. Like I have said, I had Dirrell winning by three round - therefore winning the fight by two points but of course many of the rounds were close and could have been called either way. It was a close fight in which the real winner (IMHO) lost out on getting the decision.

The reason I said that Buncey "sold out" was the over exaggerated description of the fight stating that it was gripping and trilling, the bullshit about having to take the title away from the champion (that is as outdated a theory as 15 round championship fights), the lack of acknowledgement of what Dirrell was doing (negative as it may be it was still effective), failure to highlight that Froch did most of the fouling but Dirrell had the point taken away from him.

I just got the impression that he didn't call the fight as he saw it, maybe he was swayed by outside influences - people surrounding him? a relationship with Froch? the crowd? Primetime TV? - I don't know - I just didn't get the impression that he called it straight.

Then claiming the thread was based on jealous made me think "fuuck you Fatboy! thats the last time I contact Five 5, Channel 4, SKY Sports, the BBC, ITV, sign a Facebook petition or spend 20 minutes of my time ripping Marina Hyde a new whole on your behalf"