BoxRec

kaiserbill wrote:

WelshJack wrote:I had Bellew winning by a round in that fight, there is no way Chilemba was robbed it was probably a fair result.

The overwhelming concensus on the forum, and indeed the press, after that first fight was that Bellew got handed the draw as the home town fighter.

Reading across a variety your posts, one gets the extremely strong impression you would give any fight to any particular fighter, as long as he's British.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

kaiserbill wrote:

WelshJack wrote:I had Bellew winning by a round in that fight, there is no way Chilemba was robbed it was probably a fair result.

The overwhelming concensus on the forum, and indeed the press, after that first fight was that Bellew got handed the draw as the home town fighter.

Reading across a variety your posts, one gets the extremely strong impression you would give any fight to any particular fighter, as long as he's British.

It had it a draw and anyone who knows how to score a fight would agree.

WelshJack wrote:People can have different opinions?

WelshJack wrote:People can have different opinions?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

WelshJack wrote:People can have different opinions?

Yes, but they clearly won 6 rounds each.

WelshJack wrote:completely wrong?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

WelshJack wrote:completely wrong?

You're either wrong or you're not and in this case, you are.

thepocketrocket wrote:I find it all a bit of a joke. It's too obvious that the count only got to nine, that is a fact. The nonsense spouted that it was Scott's fault because he was a visitor and consequently this was acceptable as it was 'our turf' is a joke.

I found it during the Olympics. The number of joke decisions Brits got was amazing. But the consensus was that they were our boys so it was great they were getting the benefit of the robbery, almost funny

For me, boxing is about the sport I love, not nationalism. I do feel I am becoming more of a minority however.

Dead Mouse wrote:Board rules state that the boxer has to be up and ready to defend himself in order to resume, not just starting to make his way up at nine with his hands by his knees. You’re supposed to begin rising at eight. If you leave it later the ref can count you out in the act of rising. Scott started to rise with nine in his face, it takes a second to rise, he was counted out fairly. WBO regulations are less clear cut, but do indicate that the fighter should be up at eight to avoid any doubt. Lots of fighters have been counted out in this way. English ones as well:

In fact, and instead of just mindlessly blaming the ref, have a look at the tape again. Scott’s team keep shouting: “He got up at eight!” after the fight. Scott clearly looks to his corner at eight then starts to rise at nine. I’d say someone in his corner was a second out and are fault for missing the count.

It was rank amateurism by Scott, the actions of a man, and team, who have not considered the possibility of a knockdown. They should have checked the local regulations and brought the count up at the rules meeting, just to be clear. Too many people, and sadly a few on this thread, seem to be glean their understanding of the rules from the climatic count from Ricky II.

Most refs will do ‘9 and out’. Those who don’t, and allow the fighter to rise at nine, muddy the issue, but that’s another story.

3.33 If a Boxer is “down” under the provisions of Regulation 3.32.1(a) he must return to the boxing ring unassisted within twenty seconds. In all other cases mentioned above, he must regain his feet unassisted within ten seconds.

Dead Mouse wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Terry, you are right. The shambles, and it was a shambles, stems from inconsistency of application and stupidity on the part of Scott. I don't think for one minute that fight would've been stopped in the US. I also think that other British referees may have allowed the fight to continue. I wasn't satisfied with the conclusion.

Michael Alexander and Victor Loughlin probably would have. Maybe not Marcus McDonnell, though

taffytoon wrote:There is no 10 during the referees count. It is 9 then OUT which is what happened.

jonp wrote:

taffytoon wrote:There is no 10 during the referees count. It is 9 then OUT which is what happened.

Taffytoon can you quote the rule as i cant find the book.I dont want to sound stupid here but im pretty sure you can get counted out in the act of rising or the ref can keep counting even when yr up(sure iv seen this)