BoxRec

Autobarn wrote:I think the ref thought it was a punch that caused the cut.

Dioufy wrote:If a fight is stopped by a cut caused by a punch then the person who threw the punch deserves the win.

Chambers2 wrote:

Dioufy wrote:If a fight is stopped by a cut caused by a punch then the person who threw the punch deserves the win.

and if it's caused by a clash of heads then the fighter doesn't deserve the win, the current BBBC rule states that the cut person loses the fight.

Dioufy wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

Dioufy wrote:If a fight is stopped by a cut caused by a punch then the person who threw the punch deserves the win.

and if it's caused by a clash of heads then the fighter doesn't deserve the win, the current BBBC rule states that the cut person loses the fight.

I know the rule but it's my opinion. If a boxer lands with a punch that cuts someone then it doesn't matter what round it is for me, because it was the punch that caused it (and punching is the aim of this sport lol). If it's caused by a head then it's an accident, otherwise it's intentional, and thus a DQ or points dedecutions. You can't punish someone for landing a punch that opened up a cut in my opinion, because throwing punches is the aim of the sport, and to hand out a TD for doing what comes naturally is wrong.

Chambers2 wrote:Good Morning Simon

I'm a avid British Boxing fan and have been for quite a few years. I'd been really looking forward to the Elcock Vs McDermott fight that happened in Wolverhampton on Friday 20th June, so I was very disappointed in the way the fight ended, but to coin a phrase "Hey that's Boxing". The Sky commentators and understandably McDermott and his team thought the stoppage by the doctor was harsh, but I'm not so sure considering the size of the cut, the swelling and that it was only the second round.

What I can't understand though is why Elcock is declared the winner of the fight in this instance, why is Elcock being rewarded for an accidental clash of heads? Surely the logical rule is the rule that is used elsewhere around the world, where the fight would have been scored a technical draw as the stoppage caused by the clash of heads happened within the first 4 rounds, if it happened after the 4th round then it would have gone to the scorecards.

Could you please explain to me the logic of McDermott being debited with a loss and Elcock being credited with a win, due to this accidental clash of heads? I recall this same absurd rule coming into effect in March 2004 when Herbie Hide clashed heads with Mindaugas Kulikauskas and Herbie was given a L on his record in a fight he was extremely unlikely to lose.
Are there any plans to update this rule to bring us in line with the rest of the world, as this seems like an obvious error in the BBBC rules.
Thanks for your time

Dear Mr Chambers

REFERENCE YOUR QUERY

Injuries are caused in boxing by either accident or a deliberate foul.

In the case to which you refer namely the Elcock vs McDermott contest the referee ruled that the cut was caused as a result of an accident. Under the rules of the BBB of C an accidental cut is treated in the same way as an injury to a shoulder or an ankle which prevents a boxer continuing. the same applies in many other sports eg. tennis if one of the participants suffers an injury and is unable to continue.

Regards

SIMON BLOCK
General Secretary

Thanks for the reply Lynne, but it's unfair that Darren McDermott is being punished with a loss for what was essentially an accident and Elcock is being rewarded for with a win. The ruling in the rest of the World is that the fight would be classed as a technical draw, which is clearly the fairer way of doing things. The reference to tennis and other non contact sports is irrelevent in my opinion as the injury was not caused by the opponent.

Max Molyneux wrote:Clash of heads.

McDermott maybe a slow starter but Wayne just went out with constant agression and looked more effective.