BoxRec

Eubank is so under-rated.

He had a big reputation back in the Bronx when his name was Eubanks (with an 's' on the end), his reputation was that he never lost a round when he got his jab working and was never knocked down. He only had 26 amateur fights but fought for the Jerome Club in gym bouts all the time, he was the top club fighter in New York in 1986 before returning to England in 1987 to work as Herol Graham's sparring partner. Reg Gutteridge (good friend of Cus D'Amato's and claims to be Mike Tyson's first biographer when Tyson was 14) still remembers seeing Eubanks win the Spanish Golden Gloves in New York in 1984 and asked him to come back to England with him and turn professional.

Ray Close, by the way, was the only future pro to beat Dariusz Michalczewski in the amateurs (1986 Junior European Championships). Also Close was robbed at the 1987 Junior World Championships in his opening fight against the Cuban Martinez who went on to win Gold, in Cuba. Close sparred with Roy Jones Jr in Cuba too (Jones Jr lost at the first stage as well).
So, don't under-estimate Eubank's two defences against Close. Close had pedigree.

Another guy who had pedigree who Eubank fought was Hugo Corti. Corti went to the Olympics a couple of times and won a lot of amateur titles, as a pro Corti knocked out former WBC/WBA middleweight king Hugo Corro.

As far as I'm concerned, Eubank would of definately beaten Calzaghe on points - prime for prime.

Greg Nicholas wrote:Eubank is so under-rated.

He had a big reputation back in the Bronx when his name was Eubanks (with an 's' on the end), his reputation was that he never lost a round when he got his jab working and was never knocked down. He only had 26 amateur fights but fought for the Jerome Club in gym bouts all the time, he was the top club fighter in New York in 1986 before returning to England in 1987 to work as Herol Graham's sparring partner. Reg Gutteridge (good friend of Cus D'Amato's and claims to be Mike Tyson's first biographer when Tyson was 14) still remembers seeing Eubanks win the Spanish Golden Gloves in New York in 1984 and asked him to come back to England with him and turn professional.

Ray Close, by the way, was the only future pro to beat Dariusz Michalczewski in the amateurs (1986 Junior European Championships). Also Close was robbed at the 1987 Junior World Championships in his opening fight against the Cuban Martinez who went on to win Gold, in Cuba. Close sparred with Roy Jones Jr in Cuba too (Jones Jr lost at the first stage as well).
So, don't under-estimate Eubank's two defences against Close. Close had pedigree.

Another guy who had pedigree who Eubank fought was Hugo Corti. Corti went to the Olympics a couple of times and won a lot of amateur titles, as a pro Corti knocked out former WBC/WBA middleweight king Hugo Corro.

this is all very interesting background, but the fact is that on any given night, Chris was capable of turning in pretty awful performances, and struggled with people who had a high workrate and some boxing skills.

It's all hypothetical of course, but I could see Calzaghe outworking Eubank.

Nobody on here is underrating Eubank, he's a british boxing legend, but he was beatable and was lucky to escape with his title a couple of times, notably in the rematch with Benn, and the first and second fights with Watston.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Loftgroov wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:


The scoring on the Reid fight was a flagrant fix. I don't care who hears it, but those guys were on the take from Sauerland. The first 6 rounds, Ottke did absolutely nothing and was ahead after 6 by two rounds somehow, despite landing about 5 shots over 5 rounds, and constantly holding and complaining to the ref about nothing.

Then the last 6 rounds, where Ottke definetly won at least 4 of the rounds as Reid tried to avoid getting DQ'd, they judges scored the majority to Reid, blatantly just to even up the scoring a bit so it didn't look suss.

I lost all respect for Ottke that night, as he clearly saw it as his right to retain his title without having to fight for it, and obviously knew that ref Tillerman had been paid off by the promoter too.

Excuse my ignorance, but who exactly pays referees and judges? It should be through an independent body and not directly from a promoter, and then this issue might become a thing of the past in boxing.

Imagine Man Utd vs Arsenal, with the referee being paid for by Alex Ferguson…

It’s not too dissimilar a scenario is it? Absolute madness really. There should be a central organisation which allocates referees to all world championship fights, e.g. determined on a rolling programme over a 5 year period. You then end up with whichever referee’s turn is next..?

An example of a refereeing performance I thought was a disgrace was during the Lacy vs Reid fight. The referee was seriously and overly harsh on Reid for any minor infringement. At one point I thought he was going to stop the fight and have a word with Reid for actually having the audacity to hit Lacy!

He didn’t want the Brit causing an upset in the Yank’s back yard. Simple as that. The Brit needed to know his place.

He helped Lacy up after a slip at one point, which I felt was odd – and moreover, after Lacy won the ref was in the Lacy corner looking absolutely delighted!!! Grinning like a Cheshire cat. I can’t remember the last time I saw e.g. an FA referee so publicly delighted having overseen one team beat another. As it transpires, Lacy won the fight fairly enough, but the ref blatantly was NOT “neutral”.

Its an important issue, and one that adds to boxing not being accepted by more of the mainstream public. Who wants to tune in and watch a pre-arranged farce. We have WWE for that…

that's my point exactly...

In what other sport does a promoter run ANYTHING? Boxing is the only sport run by promoters. To have the officials paid and not only that, looked after by promoters is ridiculous. They pay flights and accomodation costs as well as fees is I remember rightly, and usually make the arrangements for where they stay. This is patently ridiculous.

As you say, if it happened in football, there'd be fornicating ructions.

Darts, Snooker, Football (Are the clubs not promoters of sorts?) Tennis, Golf, fishing.......

Freiheit wrote:Just to make a thing clear. Its the sanction body that pays the officials. Ie in Kessler vs Lucas: Kessler got $80K, Lucas $75K (+ canadian TV rights) and WBA $21K. Then WBA pays for the belts, travel, hotel ect.

No it's not. The Promoters pay the fees as set out by the governing bodies.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Freiheit wrote:Just to make a thing clear. Its the sanction body that pays the officials. Ie in Kessler vs Lucas: Kessler got $80K, Lucas $75K (+ canadian TV rights) and WBA $21K. Then WBA pays for the belts, travel, hotel ect.

It appears to vary by jurisdiction Freiheit. I am pretty sure that the BBBofC collect the officials fees from the promoter.

For instance, according to the New Mexico boxing commisions regulations.

Payment of Officials.
"The commision shall collect from the promoter official's fees."

Wrong again, do you lot actually know anything?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Freiheit wrote:Just to make a thing clear. Its the sanction body that pays the officials. Ie in Kessler vs Lucas: Kessler got $80K, Lucas $75K (+ canadian TV rights) and WBA $21K. Then WBA pays for the belts, travel, hotel ect.

It appears to vary by jurisdiction Freiheit. I am pretty sure that the BBBofC collect the officials fees from the promoter.

For instance, according to the New Mexico boxing commisions regulations.

Payment of Officials.
"The commision shall collect from the promoter official's fees."

In NM the commissioner (also a Manager of fighters himself) tells you that if you don't put on the Boxers he wants and pay them what he say's, then the show a'int going on.

boxingchat wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Freiheit wrote:Just to make a thing clear. Its the sanction body that pays the officials. Ie in Kessler vs Lucas: Kessler got $80K, Lucas $75K (+ canadian TV rights) and WBA $21K. Then WBA pays for the belts, travel, hotel ect.

It appears to vary by jurisdiction Freiheit. I am pretty sure that the BBBofC collect the officials fees from the promoter.

For instance, according to the New Mexico boxing commisions regulations.

Payment of Officials.
"The commision shall collect from the promoter official's fees."

Wrong again, do you lot actually know anything?

So in a British title fight for instance, who would collect the fees? As the commission involved is the BBBofC, surely it would be them?

In a world title fight, who (in the UK) would collect the fees to be passed on to the sanctioning body, or does the promoter just pay the fees direct to the sanctioning body, or direct to the officials (which is what I originally thought.)

Whatever way you look at it, it is fornicating ridiculous that promoters pay officials, whether directly indirectly or through a commission, it's a situation which is clearly open to abuse and influence intentional or otherwise.

So where would the money come from if the Promoter did not pay it?
Tbe Promoter controls the finances of the event so who else could or would pay the officials?

A body with a bottomless pit of cash perhaps, do you know of one?

It doesn't matter how many hands the money goes through the Promoter will be at the top of the food chain because it's his event.

However, he DOES NOT appoint the officials in any way. However, he has the right, as do the local commission and the Boxers to protest any appointment.

Being hospitable by taking them out for a meal and treating them well in a foreign land does not constitute corruption, it's just good manners. All Promoters do it the world over I am sure.

Surely if there was anything dodgy going on you would never see any inter action at all it would be behind closed doors, would it not?

As for Brian Hughes comments, just sour grapes IMO. I feel sure that the Italian promoters looked after the officials when he BEAT Nardiello in Rome?

Winners never moan do they?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that there was nothing untoward going on in the refereeing and judging of the Reid v Ottke fight? If you are then there's no hope for you, that was as blatant a jobbing as I've ever seen. The judges awarded four of the first 6 rounds to Ottke, despite the fact he hardly landed a single punch. They then awarded rounds to Reid in the latter half of the fight which he clearly did not win, merely to balance the scoring a bit.

You are simply reinforcing my point, which is that boxing is the only sport which is run by promoters and that is why it is so open to influence and abuse. I am not accusing promoters here, I am accusing those involved in boxing who kow tow to promoters because they want to keep getting work.

Promoters should not be able to influence the appointment of officials so much, there are clear cases where promoters have been allowed to choose the judges by sanctioning bodies officials. This is of course because the sanctioning bodies want to keep getting nice fat 4% cuts from purses of successful champions.

To insinuate that members of the sanctioning bodies and some promoters do not collude in satisfying their own aims is frankly, bollocks. Seeing as the former head of the IBF went to jail for corruption and the whole IBF was investigated on more than one occasion by the FBI I don't know how you can even bother to dispute it. If the IBF are at it, it's a fair bet it goes on in all the sanctioning bodies to some extent.

Sanctioning bodies take a cut of the shows hosted by the major promoters, whose fighters are in turn given preferential treatment in rankings and in the selection of judges and referees. Are you seriously trying to tell me it doesn't happen.

Why don't the sanctioning bodies pay for the upkeep of their own officials out of their own cut of the world title fight purses. They get 4% as standard I believe or thereabouts. I'll tell you why, because they are too fornicating greedy.

Sadly this is never going to change as boxing always was and always will be run by promoters whose aim is to fill their own pockets. That's the way of the world, and it's also part of the reason why compared to other global sports like Soccer, Basketball etc, boxing is a poor relation.

And anyway, why the fornicate would winners moan, if they've fornicating well won, what is there to moan about, what a pointless comment that was.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This may be so, but if, and it's big IF, Calzaghe beats Lacy, then you and a lot of other dumbasses are going to be eating a lot of crow pie.

To call him Calwhoee is ridiculous, what other fighter at SM has achieved more to date? Lacy hasn't faced a prime dangerman yet, Kessler is still a way off matching Calzaghe's resume, and Ottke, the king of the hometown decision is retired.

I'm no Calzaghe apologist, but to date there is nobody else in the division who boasts a better record, and if he does beat Lacy, then he will have proven a very big point.

Let's just put it this way Calzaghe just doesn't have the same aura of a Eubank, Benn, Collins, Jones and Toney and that's what the Middle and Super Middleweights used to provide in the early 90's and that's what we all long for to return.

Calzaghe v Lacy is hopefully the start of something similar and hopefully we can get a unification tournament on. Kessler would like to be involved I imagine from what I've heard from him so the only problem is Beyer who I think is going down a similar route as Ottke! But that should change once he’s fought Otis Grant.

What I would say though is a prime Eubank would beat a prime Calzaghe IMO, and that’s all it is my opinion.

To a degree those fighters are viewed with slightly rose tinted spectacles though. As much as I admire them all, Jones Jr wasn't a SM for very long, Toney eat his way out of the division after losing, and Benn, Watson, Eubank and Collins all benefitted tremendously from terrestrial TV exposure early in their careers. The division was packed with talent domestically.

Worth remembering that only Benn went and cut the mustard in the states at SM, and big fights with Toney, Nunn or Jones Jr never materialised.

I've spoken with judges who shall remain nameless, who have told me that there is an unstated pressure on judges to 'do the right thing' by a particular promoter.

Promoters should not be allowed to have ANY contact with the officials in my opinion, nor should they be paying for accomodation/dinner etc.

If you want to see how bad this situation can get, then read this, it's a bit of research I did into the background of the Reid v Ottke fight. This is after only a bit of minor probing.

I never said anywhere that it was down to bags full of money, but ratherI agree that it is nepotism and self interest. Sanctioning bodies make their money from purse cuts, purses are paid by promoters. Judges make their money from the sanctioning bodies, ultimately, all roads lead back to the promoter.

Judges are under tremendous pressure from the commissions and sanctioning bodies also, for instance, many senior judges have told me that they daren't score an even round as they are reprimanded.

what would help tremendously, would be if the judging criteria were made clearer. I know judging can be subjective, but many judges seem to be just making up their own criteria.

I am aware that there are cases where fighters bleat about losing when it's their own fault, but there are clear cut cases where there is somethign amiss. Think Chavez v Sweetpea for instance. hugely popular mexican network star, promoted by Don king, against all time great but virtually unknown outside of boxing circles.

I don't think Lennox could have carried on after McCall decked him but he had a fair argument for saying he should have been given the opportunity.he was champ after all, and Richard Steele was long linked with King. The WBC would have known that King is a good bet for sanctioning fees in the long term as they had a long history with him.

Also why are judges sat in one of the worst places to view the action. I've covered fights at ringside many times, and the view is often terrible, the ropes obscure a lot, as does the ref, TV cameras etc. Could they not be given soundproof earmuffs to they aren't influenced by the crowd?

Even rounds are part of the rules, therefore they should be used.

In the heat of the action, it's very hard to remember exactly what transpired in a round, which is why many smart fighters grandstand the last 30-40 seconds.

I personally use a tally system. I make a mark every time fighter A or B lands a shot, a flurry or a big shot which staggers their opponent might get two, a four punch combo four etc. This at least gives me an idea of how much each guy landed and their quality.

My rationale is this. We use an imperfect system to judge, most rounds are scored 10-9 even if one guy dominates it thoroughly. Theoretically the judge can aware a 10-8 without a knockdown, but i've never seen it happen.

If a round is close enough that you are struggling to find a winner, then I say make it a 10-10, that way the clearly dominated rounds are scored 10-9 and the fighter who won more big rounds is likely to get the deserved decision, rather than a fighter who nicked a few very close rounds getting it because of disagreement between judges who sway towards him because he is champ/house fighter whatever.

I had a discussion about this and 10-10 rounds with a prominent Nevada state judge agreed with me, but said something along the lines of.

"what you say makes perfect sense and in an ideal world I agree, but if i scored even rounds, I would not get used by the Nevada state athletic commission and I would be out of a job."

Things like footwork, ring generalship and defence are not scored these days at least not enough. Witness the closeness of the scorecards in the Toney v Jirov fight, despite the fact that Jirov only landed something like 15% of his shots and the vast majority landed on gloves, elbows and shoulders. The judges were crediting Jirov for throwing shots he couldn't land.

I believe all 3 judges awarded Baldomir a 10-8 round in the 7th against Judah, despite there being no knockdown.

That's me shut up then!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Are you seriously trying to tell me that there was nothing untoward going on in the refereeing and judging of the Reid v Ottke fight? If you are then there's no hope for you, that was as blatant a jobbing as I've ever seen. The judges awarded four of the first 6 rounds to Ottke, despite the fact he hardly landed a single punch. They then awarded rounds to Reid in the latter half of the fight which he clearly did not win, merely to balance the scoring a bit.

You are simply reinforcing my point, which is that boxing is the only sport which is run by promoters and that is why it is so open to influence and abuse. I am not accusing promoters here, I am accusing those involved in boxing who kow tow to promoters because they want to keep getting work.

Promoters should not be able to influence the appointment of officials so much, there are clear cases where promoters have been allowed to choose the judges by sanctioning bodies officials. This is of course because the sanctioning bodies want to keep getting nice fat 4% cuts from purses of successful champions.

To insinuate that members of the sanctioning bodies and some promoters do not collude in satisfying their own aims is frankly, bollocks. Seeing as the former head of the IBF went to jail for corruption and the whole IBF was investigated on more than one occasion by the FBI I don't know how you can even bother to dispute it. If the IBF are at it, it's a fair bet it goes on in all the sanctioning bodies to some extent.

Sanctioning bodies take a cut of the shows hosted by the major promoters, whose fighters are in turn given preferential treatment in rankings and in the selection of judges and referees. Are you seriously trying to tell me it doesn't happen.

Why don't the sanctioning bodies pay for the upkeep of their own officials out of their own cut of the world title fight purses. They get 4% as standard I believe or thereabouts. I'll tell you why, because they are too fornicating greedy.

Sadly this is never going to change as boxing always was and always will be run by promoters whose aim is to fill their own pockets. That's the way of the world, and it's also part of the reason why compared to other global sports like football, Basketball etc, boxing is a poor relation.

Further to your rant.....................

You sound a frustrated individual I have to say. Firstly, no governing body take 4% only the BBBofC. 3% is the going rate an this pays for life insurtance etc as well as keep their businesses running. The Promoter also pays a standard sanctioning fee. I cannot defend them but to call them crooked is a bit strong.

However, stating that Boxing is a poor relation is bollocks too and offensive. Football has match fixing, bungs, dodgy transfer deals and cash bonuses, Ice-Skating has players paying to have their oppoents legs broken and horse racing has a weekly betting scandal. Cricket has ball tampering and match fixing whilst Motor racing has dodgy Tyres and regular cheating with cards, The Olympics is rife with drug taking and Snooker and Darts (well let's just say it's odd that these big final alway's last the duration of the TV slot, ever wondered why that is?)

In comparison Boxing is virginal old son.

Sport is big, big business and where there is cash and many viewers then corruption is alway's touted but rarely proven. The facts are however, how many real scandals has boxing endured compared to the other sports?

Boxing is a poor relation in terms of the money generated.

Although there are a few fighters who earn astronomical sums and a few successful promoters doing very nicely, overall the earnings from boxing pale into insignificance compared with the TV rights bandied about for other sports.

there's nothing offensive about it, it's just a fact.

Boxing has a history of scandal and corruption going back to it's earliest days which outdoes any other sport I can think of.

I will call them crooked for you, you don't go to jail and get invesigated like the ex IBF (robert lee?) president did unless you're crooked now do you?

I've not heard any allegations of match fixing in snooker, and the finals do not always last the duration of the slots. The fact is, in a contest between two evenly matched players in the final of a big tournament it is of course going to be rare for someone to get completely spanked.

football has it's problems, but the officials are appointed and paid for by the local FA, all of whom answer to FIFA. This makes sorting out any untoward behaviour and investigations a bit easier.

Boxing is wild and wooly, and still has a carnivalesque quality about it. Part of me enjoys the characters in the game, but part of me would also like boxing to sort it's act out.

I cannot be alone in this, I am sure that promoters would rather not to have to deal with the vageries of the sanctioning bodies. for instance, allegedly had a long running problem with Jose sulaiman, and rightly so, as Sulaiman is as Warren himself stated 'A wanker.'

jamesmcdonnell wrote:However, Collins and Eubank both looked bigger than Calzaghe does come fight night. Not sure where all that weight is on Calzaghe, because he isn't very tall, not that thickset or muscular.

Without his ego he could make 10 stone.

because you have never heard of it does not mean it doens not happen, belive me it does regularly. Boxing attracts TV revenue in relation to
it's competityors and football remember is spread among everyone and rights held by the governing body. This would not work in boxing.

Bobby Lee was crooked but did not actually serve any actual jail time. Suliaman may be a crook but he has done some good things in boxing too has have other 'crooks' such as Don King. King has doen alot for Boxing but this is easily forgotten due to the public perception of him.

As Larry Holmes once said something like "with DK I made $50 mill and he stole 10M whereas Arum paid me 20 Million and took nothing. I love being fucked over by DK!

All the governing bodies are targets but all do alot for Boxers that is never reported. Believe it or not the better the title the worse the stink. In fact as a whiter than white organisation the WBU would easily come out on top and the WBO too yet you lot slag them off at every opportunity.

Eubank says that he didn't eat or drink anything for three or four days before the second Collins fight, and spent all his time bouncing up and down in a steam room trying to shift weight.

Jim, didn't Eubank fight Johnny Melfah on your Azumah Nelson undercard? And was that shown in America by any chance?

boxingchat wrote:because you have never heard of it does not mean it doens not happen, belive me it does regularly. Boxing attracts TV revenue in relation to
it's competityors and football remember is spread among everyone and rights held by the governing body. This would not work in boxing.

Bobby Lee was crooked but did not actually serve any actual jail time. Suliaman may be a crook but he has done some good things in boxing too has have other 'crooks' such as Don King. King has doen alot for Boxing but this is easily forgotten due to the public perception of him.

As Larry Holmes once said something like "with DK I made $50 mill and he stole 10M whereas Arum paid me 20 Million and took nothing. I love being fucked over by DK!

All the governing bodies are targets but all do alot for Boxers that is never reported. Believe it or not the better the title the worse the stink. In fact as a whiter than white organisation the WBU would easily come out on top and the WBO too yet you lot slag them off at every opportunity.

Eh? Heard of what, not sure what you are referring to.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I know the sanctioning bodies do a lot for fighters which isn't so highly publicised, but they also fornicate the sport with their greed and self interest. There are some scandalous things that go on in the officialdom of the sanctioning bodies.

The reason the WBO get slagged off, is that their rankings are shite. Though they have some good champions, their top contenders are often awful, as any look at the WBO web page will tell you. They also often fail to even attempt to enforce their own mandatories, which cheapens the title.

I think everyone here recognises for instance that Joe Calzaghe is a talented fighter, but holding the WBO belt for so long has in some ways been a hindrance, as he has failed to ever take on the leading lights of the division. Now whethere that is down to politics, Calzaghe himself, or his promoter, is very much a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's a combination of bad luck, injury, and Joe not really being all that arsed about proving anything to anyone else. However, it would have been harder for Joe to do that if he had held a big three belt as generally (though not always of course) the standard of their mandatory contenders is higher.

As for whiter than white, the IBO are probably the cleanest of the sanctioning bodies, and also one of the smallest, and there's a reason for that. Small fringe bodies like them have no power, sway or authority. If they try to fornicate fighters or promoters around the likely response would be 'right, well stick you tinfoil belt up your arsehole then, we don't want it.'

Conversely, the likes of the big three belts, have a lot of power when it comes to affecting a fighters career, and so they can afford to abuse that power.

Boxing is the only sport I can think of where the rankings are so subjective. I mean, in all other sports there is a clear world number one based on winning competitions.

My point about football was that as a sport overall it generated a lot more money than boxing. The average 2nd division player earns far more than the vast majority of boxing in the UK.

I forget how much the TV rights were for the premiership this season, but it was in the billions, not millions, and that doesn't take into account the huge amount of money generated from gate receipts for the big clubs.

Football really got it's act together over the last 15 years and totally transformed it's fortunes.

I don't think boxing can do the same, because on a fundamental level some people will always shy away from watching two people punch one another in the head repeatedly, which limits it's appeal, but there is still much that can be done by all involved to help the sports profile. Trouble is, it's a messy and nasty job and there's so many people whose interests would be spoilt.

For instance, What if promoters and TV companies sat down and said. "look, fornicate the sanctioning bodies, we don't need them, they are just a drain on the whole game." Without TV demanding 'title fights' would the sanctioning bodies be able to survive?

I know that the sanctioning bodies provide a lot of other functions, including insurance, medical issues and the like, but surely there are alternative routes.

Anyway, fact is, it's not going to happen any time soon, so I'll just sit back, smoke a cigar and wait for the big fights to happen that make it all worthwhile.

Terence wrote:James I still disagree on even rounds as I think you can always find a winner in a round unless they both stand stock still staring at one another. Even rounds are evil IMO grandstanding the last 30 secs is a problem but that is where the judges "Expertise" is called into the equation. A tally system sounds a bit like the amateur system unless you take into account the quality of punch and in that case you could end up annotating your card and miss some action.

I do agree that the 10 - 8 system should be used more but again you'll find judge A giving 10 - 8 for a good round with no KD but then judge B may give 10 - 9 and everyone goes off their tits when the cards come in.

10 - 10 rounds are like a cancer and usually when a judge decides to do this the fight is awful and you are going to get more close rounds. Look what happened in Hagler - Leonard (a good fight BTW) where one judge had what 8 - 9 "even" rounds! Imagine the scenario, you score 8 rounds even and one guy wins 3 rounds to 1 of the "real" rounds to win a fight. Can you say a guy has won a fight if he only wins three rounds? I would not like to think so. The problem we have is that some fights may see one guy win 6 huge rounds with no KD and another sneak 6 rounds so who wins? The 10 - 8 used well was set-up to combat this but it has gotten fucked-up and 10 - 8 is a knee-jerk reaction and say a guy goes down but gets up to carry the round after a flash KD? He still can get shafted on the cards because many judges think KD = 10 - 8 when it does not. KD, dominantion or an otherwise close round with a KD = 10 - 8.

Defence, ring generalmanship and footwork are not being scored because people only look at the hands of the boxers but guess what? Has we saw with Audley recently the hands are not always hitting!

We need judges who know how to judge, get rid of the female ones (along with their boxing counter parts) and you'll see a better level of judging. As for controversy in boxing, I'm inclined to favour it as football is so boring and sterile now when you see boxing it is very exciting and paradoxically "pure" as it is not watered down for TV cameras and has a bit of the wild about it IMO. Lets not regulate the magic away.

As for Warren calling Sulaiman a "wanker", both are part of the same hypocracy IMO.

Even rounds should be used sparingly, but to say they should not be used is erroneous. I gave one round even in the Morales v Pacquaio fight, the third. I thought Morales came on stronger in the 1st half, but in the latter half Pacman dominated and neither man had control of the round.

If 10-8 rounds were more common then I would still use 10-10 rounds but even more sparingly.

The thing about flash knockdowns is a very good point. More often than not you hear commentators say "well that knockdown means a 10-8 round for fighter x" well, they are usually right, even if fighter x was getting their but whooped for the rest of the round they are going to get the 10-8.

Football may be sterile and boring to you, but it's never been more popular.