BoxRec

expe wrote:

keirw wrote:

expe wrote: Seems that every close decision warrants a rematch for some reason. If Crolla wants another world title fight, go out and earn one like everyone else has to.

So giving a world class fighter one of the toughest fights of his career and doing enough to win, in the eyes of most people, isn't enough to earn a title shot?
I wonder if you would be saying that if Crolla was a Warren fighter......

No, not when there's a mandatory challenger in place, 3 or 4 better fighters in his own country and several others worldwide. If he goes out and gets a win at a good level, then he's in line for another title fight, until then there's others in front of him in the queue, he's had his go and come up just short.

But if the wba decide that Crolla should have won, then last night will be considered a victory (albeit unofficially).
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with the wba making Crolla mandatory for Perez/Mathews winner.

I personally thought Crolla won it clearly with the points deductions and you didn't hear Crolla bleating and moaning afterwards about the decision ,
he showed a lot of class in the fight and out of it !

keirw wrote:

expe wrote:

keirw wrote: So giving a world class fighter one of the toughest fights of his career and doing enough to win, in the eyes of most people, isn't enough to earn a title shot?
I wonder if you would be saying that if Crolla was a Warren fighter......

No, not when there's a mandatory challenger in place, 3 or 4 better fighters in his own country and several others worldwide. If he goes out and gets a win at a good level, then he's in line for another title fight, until then there's others in front of him in the queue, he's had his go and come up just short.

But if the wba decide that Crolla should have won, then last night will be considered a victory (albeit unofficially).
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with the wba making Crolla mandatory for Perez/Mathews winner.

The WBA's judges said that Crolla didn't win, whatever the review comes up with, he didn't win the fight.

Because there's a load of other fighters that could be made mandatory too, I don't see why Crolla should jump above all of them just because he had a close fight with the champion.

It's like Paul Smith after he lost to Abraham, demanding a rematch because he ran him close. Close fights don't mean that there has to be another one.

expe wrote: It's like Paul Smith after he lost to Abraham, demanding a rematch because he ran him close. Close fights don't mean that there has to be another one.

Smith was never mandated for a rematch, the majority of people felt he lost, but was more competitive than the scorecards suggested.
Smith moaned and groaned his way to a rematch.
There was little real controversy, unlike last night, where (as I've already stated) the majority of people feel Crolla did enough to win.

I agree Keir.

I was one of the people who was irritated by the moaning about Smith-AA, as I thought the decision was fair even though the scores were too wide. To me this isn't the same type of case though, as I think that Crolla was a clear winner. Given that I think he should've gotten the win and thus be the champion, I don't have an issue with him being ordered a shot at the Matthews-Perez winner and I think he's earned it.

crusader wrote:I agree Keir.

I was one of the people who was irritated by the moaning about Smith-AA, as I thought the decision was fair even though the scores were too wide. To me this isn't the same type of case though, as I think that Crolla was a clear winner. Given that I think he should've gotten the win and thus be the champion, I don't have an issue with him being ordered a shot at the Matthews-Perez winner and I think he's earned it.

Not much to add...perfectly summed up

thepocketrocket wrote:

crusader wrote:I agree Keir.

I was one of the people who was irritated by the moaning about Smith-AA, as I thought the decision was fair even though the scores were too wide. To me this isn't the same type of case though, as I think that Crolla was a clear winner. Given that I think he should've gotten the win and thus be the champion, I don't have an issue with him being ordered a shot at the Matthews-Perez winner and I think he's earned it.

Not much to add...perfectly summed up

+1

I scored it a draw 113-113,I had it level after 10 and gave Perez the last 2 which he was deducted making them both even rounds,it seems I'm in the vast minority (again) but no way is it a robbery or corrupt,away fighters have been far worse off everywhere in the world so I don't agree with the investigation, it just looks as if me and the judges preferred Perez's work but he had to make do with a draw because the point deductions

I was away Saturday so had just watched the Cuenca-Yang card then everything up to the Crolla fight so my eye might have been waning but apart from the 2nd round,they were all close rounds and could've went either way,the Murray stoppage was far worse officiating IMO but because it was a non title fight and a common occurrence in the UK we tend to forget

Everybody wanted Crolla to win including myself and after everything he'd been through were all hoping for a fairytale ending but if this was a British title fight against 2 equally liked fighters then maybe they're wouldn't be no fuss

But an investigation?

handsofstone wrote:I scored it a draw 113-113,I had it level after 10 and gave Perez the last 2 which he was deducted making them both even rounds,it seems I'm in the vast minority (again) but no way is it a robbery or corrupt,away fighters have been far worse off everywhere in the world so I don't agree with the investigation, it just looks as if me and the judges preferred Perez's work but he had to make do with a draw because the point deductions

I was away Saturday so had just watched the Cuenca-Yang card then everything up to the Crolla fight so my eye might have been waning but apart from the 2nd round,they were all close rounds and could've went either way,the Murray stoppage was far worse officiating IMO but because it was a non title fight and a common occurrence in the UK we tend to forget

Everybody wanted Crolla to win including myself and after everything he'd been through were all hoping for a fairytale ending but if this was a British title fight against 2 equally liked fighters then maybe they're wouldn't be no fuss

But an investigation?

There is no way Crolla got robbed in his own backyard, against a no name champion without major promotional or TV backing.

I personally thought Crolla won.
But the idea that every close fight deserves a rematch is starting to wear thin.
If Hearn and Crolla want a rematch then Hearn should make the offer to Perez to come back and put his belt on the line.
If Perez gets upgraded to super champ in the meantime I can see Eddie forking out more money than the first fight.

And the Murray stoppage was the worst I've seen this year. EMBARRASSING