BoxRec

My Dad was on a jury, the guy was up for burglary, after all the evidence was given, a unanimous decision was needed for a conviction, the vote was 11-1, my Dad being the 1. They then brought out his previous record, dozens of convictions for robbery, shoplifting and burglary. The vote was swiftly changed.

That fascinates me, its not clear what your dad did though. Was he the liberal hippy who fell for the defence's case, only to be proved wrong, or was he the only one out of 12 good men who knew the accused was a toe-rag ?

You conveniently forgot to mention the 1st time Burns dodged Broner when he was made mandatory at 130. He was able to make weight to fight the likes of layela and that other guy but as soon as Broner was made mandatory they vacated. Anyone who things Burns/Burns team haven't dodged Broner is simply wrong. Team Burns knows Broner would take Burns apart and want nothing to do this him.[/quote]
You expect a man, 5ft 10ins tall, to keep making 9st 4lbs, fight after fight, there was talk of moving up months before and he went up and fought Katsidis, who was just as good as Broner at the time. The fight was never offered to them and you don't make your point very well with Layela(Laryea) and "that other guy", I take it you mean Cook or Evensen.[/quote]


I never heard anything about him struggling for the weight. He was quite happy to fight these easy fights against undeserving domestic level fighters but as soon as Broner is mandatory they jump ship. And as far as Katsidis being just as good as Broner at the time....what are you on??? He was just about shot, way past his best coming off 2 losses.

Ezzard wrote:Was it really a terrible decision?

I had it 6-5-1 in rounds to Beltran plus the KD. That hardly makes a draw a robbery.

Ever been to Old Trafford? Or Anfield? Or Elland Road? Or Highbury?

It was fairly close, but for Burns to draw he needed to win more rounds than Beltran, and I don't see how he did that. Whether a fight is a robbery or not is not simply determined, in my view, by whether it was close; a very close fight can be a robbery if a result is delivered that isn't appropriate based on what occurred.

JimJim2009 wrote:My Dad was on a jury, the guy was up for burglary, after all the evidence was given, a unanimous decision was needed for a conviction, the vote was 11-1, my Dad being the 1. They then brought out his previous record, dozens of convictions for robbery, shoplifting and burglary. The vote was swiftly changed.

That fascinates me, its not clear what your dad did though. Was he the liberal hippy who fell for the defence's case, only to be proved wrong, or was he the only one out of 12 good men who knew the accused was a toe-rag ?

He isn't a hippy, he was the 1 though. The guy was caught in a nightclub at 6 or 7 in the morning, the defence was that he'd been in there the night before, got locked in and fallen asleep inside, which fitted with the evidence since there were no signs of forced entry, he had nothing to move anything he stole or anything like a crowbar that could have been used to pry a door or window open. They weren't told he had any previous convictions.

He isn't a hippy, he was the 1 though. The guy was caught in a nightclub at 6 or 7 in the morning, the defence was that he'd been in there the night before, got locked in and fallen asleep inside, which fitted with the evidence since there were no signs of forced entry, he had nothing to move anything he stole or anything like a crowbar that could have been used to pry a door or window open. They weren't told he had any previous convictions.[/quote]

I wasn't having a go at your dad by the way, I was just having a laugh.

I thought previous convictions didn't come out until the court case was wrapped up ?

I would like to think I'd always err on the side of guilty and send them down anyway, just to be sure

rio wrote:You conveniently forgot to mention the 1st time Burns dodged Broner when he was made mandatory at 130. He was able to make weight to fight the likes of layela and that other guy but as soon as Broner was made mandatory they vacated. Anyone who things Burns/Burns team haven't dodged Broner is simply wrong. Team Burns knows Broner would take Burns apart and want nothing to do this him.

You expect a man, 5ft 10ins tall, to keep making 9st 4lbs, fight after fight, there was talk of moving up months before and he went up and fought Katsidis, who was just as good as Broner at the time. The fight was never offered to them and you don't make your point very well with Layela(Laryea) and "that other guy", I take it you mean Cook or Evensen.[/quote]


I never heard anything about him struggling for the weight. He was quite happy to fight these easy fights against undeserving domestic level fighters but as soon as Broner is mandatory they jump ship. And as far as Katsidis being just as good as Broner at the time....what are you on??? He was just about shot, way past his best coming off 2 losses.[/quote]
Less than a year earlier he had dropped Marquez and dragged him into a war, Broner had fought once since arguably being beaten by Ponce de Leon and was yet to beat a world class fighter, whether he deserved the decision or not.

JimJim2009 wrote:He isn't a hippy, he was the 1 though. The guy was caught in a nightclub at 6 or 7 in the morning, the defence was that he'd been in there the night before, got locked in and fallen asleep inside, which fitted with the evidence since there were no signs of forced entry, he had nothing to move anything he stole or anything like a crowbar that could have been used to pry a door or window open. They weren't told he had any previous convictions.

I wasn't having a go at your dad by the way, I was just having a laugh.

I thought previous convictions didn't come out until the court case was wrapped up ?

I would like to think I'd always err on the side of guilty and send them down anyway, just to be sure[/quote]
They needed a 12-0 vote for a conviction, so the previous was brought out as extra evidence.

Since when are you told of previous convictions before the jury votes????

Hagler2002 wrote:Burns comes across as a nice fella but plenty people want to see him fail due to the garbage and abusive replies that's spouted by Nelson on this forum when anybody dares to question Ricky's ability.

I admire how Ricky comes across - very level headed for a successful athlete and Nelson does come across bad natured on here; the first straw is always the last straw for hm.

Hagler2002 wrote:Burns comes across as a nice fella but plenty people want to see him fail due to the garbage and abusive replies that's spouted by Nelson on this forum when anybody dares to question Ricky's ability.

Anybody who wants to see a fighter fail, because of what his trainer says are morons and don't deserve to be called boxing fans, if you don't like Nelson, instead of wanting his fighter to lose, be a man and tell him what you think about him face to face, or is that too much of a daunting task, for keyboard warriors.

Coco wrote:Since when are you told of previous convictions before the jury votes????

They voted, then were told to see if it brought a conviction with a new vote.

expe wrote:

Coco wrote:Since when are you told of previous convictions before the jury votes????

They voted, then were told to see if it brought a conviction with a new vote.

Never heard of that before

Coco wrote:

expe wrote:

Coco wrote:Since when are you told of previous convictions before the jury votes????

They voted, then were told to see if it brought a conviction with a new vote.

Never heard of that before

Seems to be a good idea when you think about it. It would help avoid a retrial or somebody getting off scot free.

Coco wrote:

expe wrote:

Coco wrote:Since when are you told of previous convictions before the jury votes????

They voted, then were told to see if it brought a conviction with a new vote.

Never heard of that before

Your man is talking utter bollocks. Bad Character of a defendant is not a direction made by a judge to assist in circumstances when a jury is struggling to reach a unamionus verdict. That I can promise you.

columbo wrote:

Emmseegee wrote:As a Burns fan I can admit he lost but sadly (for Beltran) close rounds go to the home fighter on these kind of shows. We have seen these kind of fights so many times before, Burns scraped a few rounds whereas the rounds Beltran won were won convincingly which stick in the memory and make the decision look ridiculous. As I said, I believe Burns lost but some of the stick he's getting is shocking.
Horse is correct, its one dodgy decision and people are making it out as if Burns has been gifted every fight. If you agree to fighting away then you know you are up against it straight away. Thats just the way it is, ask Martin Murray or other British fighters who have suffered from the same injustice.

As for Burns, he needs work on some upper body movement in my opinion. He needs to start dipping, ducking and diving whilst covering up instead of just standing upright and stationary behind his guard. He is lucky to be blessed with extremely long forearms which give him a good shield but standing stationary inviting punshment from a big puncher like that is insane.

What do you mean if you agree?! Beltran had no other choice! He wouldnt get a shot otherwise.

He stepped into the ring so he agreed to the terms, simple as that.
Remember Burns managed to get Martinez to glasgow when originally it looked like he was gonna need to challenge as an away fighter. If that fight unfolded the same away from home then Burns would have struggled to get the decision also as Burns v Martinez was a closer fight than Burns v Beltran was. Im not agreeing with what happened, i believe burns lost. I believe Beltran was robbed but he could have put in a bigger push in the last couple of rounds to take it out of the judges hands. The point I was making with the comment was that rightly or wrongly an away fighter knows he is down on the scorecards before a punch is thrown, any away fighter who believes otherwise is delusional.

liamlion wrote:Your man is talking utter bollocks. Bad Character of a defendant is not a direction made by a judge to assist in circumstances when a jury is struggling to reach a unamionus verdict. That I can promise you.

Exactly.

mrpedigree wrote:Anyone know why Sky did not post the punch stats after the fight ?

http://www.BS.com/forums/view. ... ubox-stats

Maybe they were similar to this--Beltran landing more punches in 8 rounds and more power punches in 10 rounds--and Sky thought it reflected poorly on the home fighter. I'm still particularly dumbfounded at why so many gave Burns the 2nd round; he was rocked, beaten up on the ropes, and wasn't exactly boxing great up to that point.

Stats don't determine what happen, but I feel these stats accurately reflect what happened.

Emmseegee wrote:

columbo wrote: He stepped into the ring so he agreed to the terms, simple as that.

That is a very simplistic and dare I say naive way of looking at it.

Emmseegee wrote:

columbo wrote:

Emmseegee wrote:As a Burns fan I can admit he lost but sadly (for Beltran) close rounds go to the home fighter on these kind of shows. We have seen these kind of fights so many times before, Burns scraped a few rounds whereas the rounds Beltran won were won convincingly which stick in the memory and make the decision look ridiculous. As I said, I believe Burns lost but some of the stick he's getting is shocking.
Horse is correct, its one dodgy decision and people are making it out as if Burns has been gifted every fight. If you agree to fighting away then you know you are up against it straight away. Thats just the way it is, ask Martin Murray or other British fighters who have suffered from the same injustice.

As for Burns, he needs work on some upper body movement in my opinion. He needs to start dipping, ducking and diving whilst covering up instead of just standing upright and stationary behind his guard. He is lucky to be blessed with extremely long forearms which give him a good shield but standing stationary inviting punshment from a big puncher like that is insane.

What do you mean if you agree?! Beltran had no other choice! He wouldnt get a shot otherwise.

He stepped into the ring so he agreed to the terms, simple as that.
Remember Burns managed to get Martinez to glasgow when originally it looked like he was gonna need to challenge as an away fighter. If that fight unfolded the same away from home then Burns would have struggled to get the decision also as Burns v Martinez was a closer fight than Burns v Beltran was. Im not agreeing with what happened, i believe burns lost. I believe Beltran was robbed but he could have put in a bigger push in the last couple of rounds to take it out of the judges hands. The point I was making with the comment was that rightly or wrongly an away fighter knows he is down on the scorecards before a punch is thrown, any away fighter who believes otherwise is delusional.

That's a little bit different! Martinez was the world champion and got a big pay day to come over to defend his belt against Burns. Beltran was a voluntary defense. Martinez had the choice of whether to come over or not, Beltran didnt. It's a big difference.

columbo wrote:

Emmseegee wrote:

columbo wrote: What do you mean if you agree?! Beltran had no other choice! He wouldnt get a shot otherwise.

He stepped into the ring so he agreed to the terms, simple as that.
Remember Burns managed to get Martinez to glasgow when originally it looked like he was gonna need to challenge as an away fighter. If that fight unfolded the same away from home then Burns would have struggled to get the decision also as Burns v Martinez was a closer fight than Burns v Beltran was. Im not agreeing with what happened, i believe burns lost. I believe Beltran was robbed but he could have put in a bigger push in the last couple of rounds to take it out of the judges hands. The point I was making with the comment was that rightly or wrongly an away fighter knows he is down on the scorecards before a punch is thrown, any away fighter who believes otherwise is delusional.

That's a little bit different! Martinez was the world champion and got a big pay day to come over to defend his belt against Burns. Beltran was a voluntary defense. Martinez had the choice of whether to come over or not, Beltran didnt. It's a big difference.

Burns was Martinez's mandatory, he could have let it go to purse bids, but would probably have ended up in Glasgow for less money.

I'm trying to tie up the threads here. Expe, are you basically telling us that the guy caught in the nightclub in the early hours, who was charged with burglarly/theft and your dad was on the jury and first the decision was 11-1 but then it went to 12-0 after the accused's previous form came out.... are you telling us that the accused was actually judge Carlos Ortiz who scored for Burns at the weekend ?

Or are these things unrelated ?

JimJim2009 wrote:I'm trying to tie up the threads here. Expe, are you basically telling us that the guy caught in the nightclub in the early hours, who was charged with burglarly/theft and your dad was on the jury and first the decision was 11-1 but then it went to 12-0 after the accused's previous form came out.... are you telling us that the accused was actually judge Carlos Ortiz who scored for Burns at the weekend ?

Or are these things unrelated ?

I don't think a second vote would be needed for Ortiz.