BoxRec

Matthews should have been DQ'd and I think had it not been for the cut he would have lost - the cut that "was in a safe place and wouldn't impair his vision" according to Duke McKenzie clearly was and clearly distracted him - still a close fight though. But I thought with the points off and the KD - Simpson should have won.

ITV where left with egg on their faces in my opinion (yet again)

Simpson received barely any pre-fight coverage, and the way ITV built the fight up (from Mathews perspective) the scene was set for a Mathews masterclass.

The fight it's self was entertaining enough, although I am not so sure the casual viewer will have been engrossed by it. Either way if that is the best Matthews has to offer, I'm afraid to say he has already reached his limit.

The scoring just added to the farce - My bet is Matthews will have lost a lot of non partisan scouser support after that fight.

Simpson on the other hand only comes out with positives, and he still has his British title.

Either way if that is the best Matthews has to offer, I'm afraid to say he has already reached his limit.

He was much different when beating Foster Jr.

to be honest you knew he was gonna get robbed before the fight even started. matthews almost gets a feature length film about his life, stevie gerrard and liverpool games, local hero etc and we're told "all the experts know matthews will win" simpson? he gets a 2 minute interview in his dressing room and i'm sure the interviewer even mentioned the above quote! ridiculous.

AND WHERE OR WHAT THE FCUK IS "GRENOCK"?

matthews was dirty as fcuk during the fight and could have had no complaints if he was thrown out and as far as i'm concerned he lost the first round 10-8, 2 points off therefore a max score of 116 was possible.

So i'll ask again, can a judge ignore a Ref and not deduct a point?

topper123 wrote:So i'll ask again, can a judge ignore a Ref and not deduct a point?

Not that I know of.

You could see the reaction on Vann's face!

topper123 wrote:So i'll ask again, can a judge ignore a Ref and not deduct a point?

No.

From IcLiverpool.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/live ... _page.html

In the end it was a pathetic fight. Neither guy had any skill or technique whatsoever, Matthews cant fight to save his life, he calls himself a "world champion" and a "great fighter" but he could barely squeek by a limited journeyman fighting through a mask of blood. Matthews, come off it, your deluding yourself mate. He'll get totally sparked even at European level.

Stu Jones has hit the nail on the head with this one....Matthews should have been disqualified! If the referee had done his job properly the scores wouldn't have been an issue.

Matthews' performance was one of the dirtiest I've seen recently and simply shouldn't have got away with the tactics he chose to use. I think it was around the 6th ot 7th I felt he should have been thrown out.

The scores were curious, but plausible because you had two contrasting styles and a lot came down to what you prefer as a judge. As has been the case with Simpson before, he waits too long before letting the punches go, BUT he should not have had to endure Derry's continued foul tactics IMO. The punching around the back of the head in the clinches were bad enough, but use of the elbow, forearm, excessive clinching, holding&punching should have been more than enough for Vann to enforce the rules.

overhand_right wrote:In the end it was a pathetic fight. Neither guy had any skill or technique whatsoever, Matthews cant fight to save his life, he calls himself a "world champion" and a "great fighter" but he could barely squeek by a limited journeyman fighting through a mask of blood. Matthews, come off it, your deluding yourself mate. He'll get totally sparked even at European level.

Have you seen more than just his fight with Simpson though?

He Is undoubtedly talented good fighters have had worse nights.

There Is worse dirty fighters, Skelton was doing It to Williams ven clearer and most of the Mexican Hall Of Famers are notorious for It.

Derry was much cleaner when he battered Foster.


No way did he squeak by though, without the dirtiness, knockdown and point deductions he was clearly winning. Just the dirtiness shortened the points gap.

Yes i saw him fight Foster Jr too. He cant control himself and fights like hes in a playground. All his opponent did is try for one overhand right and Matthews couldnt figure him out or display any class. He fights with his hands down, head right up in the air, jumps in with a punch and holds every 10 seconds. Zero ability, Max please do not even waste time defending Matthews, he is a joke.

He thinks hes a great fighter and a world champion, he's in for a rude awakening if he reaches European level (he may get sparked before then)

Well when he fought Foster, he used his height and reach advantages well and Foster couldn't get through his jab. His workrate with Foster was excellent too. Their was no bad fouls In that fight.

He held more this time with Simpson, had a flash knockdown he easily got up from and fought dirty but he was still beating Simpson.

He can do better and will show It like with Foster.

I still think he has the ability to win a proper world title, one bad night doesn't make a difference.

sweetscience wrote:why do people assume its always a 10-8 round following a point deduction/knockdown

u can still win the round if your knocked down etc

]

Because in the vast majority of cases, a judge will automatically award the round 10-8, they seldom use their distrection in those cases.

You cannot win a round if you are knocked down either. The best you can get is a 9-10 round if you were winning the round and then were knocked down.

overhand_right wrote:Yes i saw him fight Foster Jr too. He cant control himself and fights like hes in a playground. All his opponent did is try for one overhand right and Matthews couldnt figure him out or display any class. He fights with his hands down, head right up in the air, jumps in with a punch and holds every 10 seconds. Zero ability, Max please do not even waste time defending Matthews, he is a joke.

He thinks hes a great fighter and a world champion, he's in for a rude awakening if he reaches European level (he may get sparked before then)

I agree with you, Matthews is a dirty little fcuker and he gets stopped soon enough.

BUT - Simpsons is a better fighter than you give him credit for.

Well yeah, maybe, haven't seen anything else of Simpson. But once he decked Matthews in the 1st, he tried for the exact same overhand right one punch aaaall night, 12 rds, 36 minutes. Credit to the little guy for fighting through blood covering his face though, no doubt.

Rematch anyone??????

Grehan123 wrote:Rematch anyone??????

Simpson should think twice about that. Look what happened to Vanzie when he got a rematch after being robbed.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Because in the vast majority of cases, a judge will automatically award the round 10-8, they seldom use their distrection in those cases.

You're absolutely right here. This happens much too often.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You cannot win a round if you are knocked down either. The best you can get is a 9-10 round if you were winning the round and then were knocked down.

First, I'm not saying you can "win" the round if you are knocked down. Let's just say for arguments sake though that Fighter A is winning the round by an absolutely devastating margin. I'm talking near stoppage. Fighter B scores a flash knockdown over Fighter A. Fighter A gets up and continues his devastating pummeling. Should fighter B win that round 10-9 just because he scored a flash knockdown? The common conception is that if Fighter A won the round but was knocked down that Fighter B should be awarded a 10-9 round. But I think you could justify a 10-10 round in my first scenario. You were already on the verge of scoring that round 10-8 (without a knockdown) for Fighter A. See what I mean?

Now... as for this particular fight. I was told that Matthews was deducted 2 points for fouls. That means that somehow in the first round that Larry O'Connell gave Matthews a "10." I haven't seen the fight. I'm just trying to figure out some scores.

Simpson IMO won the fight by a rnd - He had enough rounds and with the points deducted I think he just made it past the post - I was KOd by Vanns scoring - To be honest and to use Mickey Vanns phrase, it should have been Goodnight Vienna for Mathews - We shouldnt be excusing Mathews bysaying there are dirtier fighters out there, if we do, we make fouling more acceptable - Roy Shaw fights were a different matter but this is pro boxing.

Aye theirs no excuse for dirty fighting but there wasn't many complaints about Hatton doing It to Tszyu.

Rematch anyone??????

I wouldn't complain about a rematch, he'll batter Simpson much better In a rematch. Simpson owes Andy Morris one though.

npalboxing wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Because in the vast majority of cases, a judge will automatically award the round 10-8, they seldom use their distrection in those cases.

You're absolutely right here. This happens much too often.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You cannot win a round if you are knocked down either. The best you can get is a 9-10 round if you were winning the round and then were knocked down.

First, I'm not saying you can "win" the round if you are knocked down. Let's just say for arguments sake though that Fighter A is winning the round by an absolutely devastating margin. I'm talking near stoppage. Fighter B scores a flash knockdown over Fighter A. Fighter A gets up and continues his devastating pummeling. Should fighter B win that round 10-9 just because he scored a flash knockdown? The common conception is that if Fighter A won the round but was knocked down that Fighter B should be awarded a 10-9 round. But I think you could justify a 10-10 round in my first scenario. You were already on the verge of scoring that round 10-8 (without a knockdown) for Fighter A. See what I mean?

Now... as for this particular fight. I was told that Matthews was deducted 2 points for fouls. That means that somehow in the first round that Larry O'Connell gave Matthews a "10." I haven't seen the fight. I'm just trying to figure out some scores.

As I mentioned in another thread, per WBU rules the first round could have been scored 10-10.

Any points to be taken away will be made by the WBU referee, who will inform the ringside WBU Fight Commissioner who will mark the master score sheet accordingly.The referee will decide on a knockdown if it deserves no points away, one point away or two points away. A knockdown is not an automatic point away. Any points away will be deducted from the individual rounds’ totals and not tallied up and deducted from the overall scores at the end of the contest.

Per that Vann may have told the judges not to deduct a point away for the knockdown. If the Commissioner takes off the points for fouls on the master sheet, then that's the only way to get to 118 as the 2 points for fouls would have been deducted...unless the Commissioner fcucked up.

How on earth can the first round be a 10-10 rounds, even by WBU standards The first round was fairly even, and thats being kind to Derry, once he was down it was a defo 10-8 round. Man I cant believe some of the stuff that's on this thread, folk still trying to justify how Derry won The guy lost, simple as that. No class, no power, no chance 8) Simpson would feck him in a rematch, cause he now knows Derry aint all that he was cracked up to be. Derry=no power cocky bastard.

pm wrote: AND WHERE OR WHAT THE FCUK IS "GRENOCK"?

I know. Ffs. See the place he comes from, and the first part of it's spelled green, yeah? So why not pronounce it green?

Top Dog wrote:How on earth can the first round be a 10-10 rounds, even by WBU standards The first round was fairly even, and thats being kind to Derry, once he was down it was a defo 10-8 round. Man I cant believe some of the stuff that's on this thread, folk still trying to justify how Derry won The guy lost, simple as that. No class, no power, no chance 8) Simpson would feck him in a rematch, cause he now knows Derry aint all that he was cracked up to be. Derry=no power cocky bastard.

You justify Ando when he was getting a beating against Muttley thinking It was a close fight before the stoppage, so were even on Justifying.

Alot of Scots not all though justified Simpson's cut win over Morris, so you turning towards double standards there.

You'll see a better Derry Matthews, I can't justify dirty tatics and the judges score but 114- 111 would of been correct for Derry.