BoxRec

zeroprobe wrote:I didnt think kelly was that good, he was like a mouse running away all the time.

No complaints from me.

zeroprobe wrote:I didnt think kelly was that good, he was like a mouse running away all the time.

No complaints from me.

Jack1000 wrote:Guys,

I am from America, and this sounds like one of the worst verdicts since Holyfield-Lewis I. Having not seen the bout, I can not make a judgment, but does anyone know the nationality of the three judges concerning their respected countries as well as level of judging experieance?

I am somewhat familiar with BBBOC heads such as Leonard "Nipper" Read", Simon Block, and Charles Giles. What exactly is the procedure for dealing with protests in decisions such as this? Have the judges been interviewed concerning their controversal verdicts?

Jack

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:Charles Giles is a spineless 'yes man'!! He didn't want to cross his board paymasters. They're gonna try to sweep this under the rug!

And Freiheit, dispite the article, believe us when we tell you this was a stone cold robbery. Maludrottu was dejected then totally surprised when he got the verdict. Kelly landed on the stats over double the amout of punches and his normally cut up face was almost without damage.

Can the judges be just that plain incompetant?? I don't believe they can be that stupid. I think theirs no doubt whatsoever that they where bought, the swiss judges card was a shocker. Those fans should have tore that place apart and strung up the judges!

viciousmaussa wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:Horrible outcome this is the first fight in years that actually made me ANGRY

I had it 118-110 for Kelly and that was giving the benefit of the doubt to Maludrottu.

Kelly fought a wonderfull fight at times his punches fell a little short but I really can't see how the judges managed to give so many rounds to the Champion.

Kelly as always conducted himself with class, in and out of the ring and I admire his conduct. If that had been me being shafted like that the air would have been blue I can assure you.

As for the BBBofC's Charles Giles If you are reading this I would like to ask how do you sleep at night? You are suppose to represetnt the interests of UK Boxers but your laughable comments on SKY last night prove without doubt you don't care about the fighters, fans or the sport.

Also you were asked a few simple questions by the SKY interviewer which your failed to answer. Why didn't you just admit your not interested in the sport of Boxing your only interested in the status symbol of being a BBBofC member? Its so abvious by your appearence on TV last night that you either know nothing about Boxing or just don't care. Well Mr Charles Giles I do care about Boxing and you should be ashamed of yourself, you sicken me to the core.

Charles Giles and the three judges last night in my opinion are an insult to every fighter who ever held a European Title.

the man was quite ludicrous. he looked like he'd just come out of the pub

boxingchat wrote:

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:Charles Giles is a spineless 'yes man'!! He didn't want to cross his board paymasters. They're gonna try to sweep this under the rug!

And Freiheit, dispite the article, believe us when we tell you this was a stone cold robbery. Maludrottu was dejected then totally surprised when he got the verdict. Kelly landed on the stats over double the amout of punches and his normally cut up face was almost without damage.

Can the judges be just that plain incompetant?? I don't believe they can be that stupid. I think theirs no doubt whatsoever that they where bought, the swiss judges card was a shocker. Those fans should have tore that place apart and strung up the judges!

Charles Giles is the Chairman and doesn't get paid anything and for me the fight was alot closer than people are stating here. Adam Smith is so one-sided he always influences people. Also, When Morrison got beat (Shit night all round for Gilmour) it was obvious that the fight was a pre-record as Smith and Watt said. Great result, it's about time one of these foreigners got a result on foreign ground" So why was the main event any different. IMO Kelly won the fight but not by the country mile you lot seem to have it by. Adam Smith is very good at glossing over thing in favour of the fighter he knows.

Not a travesty in the Brodie/Jorin style but possibly an unfair one. Remember a Champion just has to defend his title the Challenger has to TAKE the title.

Also, Gilmour was moaning at everyone in tye ring and singled out Charles Giles.. Why didn';t he point out the EBU Supervisor for interview so he could explain the decsion. He whinged at everybody bar those who were directly involved.

Is that because he was having a nice liquid fuelled luch with the EBU Supervisor and Judges on Saturday afternoon in the Hotel?

Perhaps all that wine they downed clouded their vision.

Giles was an easy target and should have not have given an interview.

boxingchat wrote:

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:Charles Giles is a spineless 'yes man'!! He didn't want to cross his board paymasters. They're gonna try to sweep this under the rug!

And Freiheit, dispite the article, believe us when we tell you this was a stone cold robbery. Maludrottu was dejected then totally surprised when he got the verdict. Kelly landed on the stats over double the amout of punches and his normally cut up face was almost without damage.

Can the judges be just that plain incompetant?? I don't believe they can be that stupid. I think theirs no doubt whatsoever that they where bought, the swiss judges card was a shocker. Those fans should have tore that place apart and strung up the judges!

Charles Giles is the Chairman and doesn't get paid anything and for me the fight was alot closer than people are stating here. Adam Smith is so one-sided he always influences people. Also, When Morrison got beat (Shit night all round for Gilmour) it was obvious that the fight was a pre-record as Smith and Watt said. Great result, it's about time one of these foreigners got a result on foreign ground" So why was the main event any different. IMO Kelly won the fight but not by the country mile you lot seem to have it by. Adam Smith is very good at glossing over thing in favour of the fighter he knows.

Not a travesty in the Brodie/Jorin style but possibly an unfair one. Remember a Champion just has to defend his title the Challenger has to TAKE the title.

Also, Gilmour was moaning at everyone in tye ring and singled out Charles Giles.. Why didn';t he point out the EBU Supervisor for interview so he could explain the decsion. He whinged at everybody bar those who were directly involved.

Is that because he was having a nice liquid fuelled luch with the EBU Supervisor and Judges on Saturday afternoon in the Hotel?

Perhaps all that wine they downed clouded their vision.

Giles was an easy target and should have not have given an interview.

jonny wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

boxingchat wrote:

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:Charles Giles is a spineless 'yes man'!! He didn't want to cross his board paymasters. They're gonna try to sweep this under the rug!

And Freiheit, dispite the article, believe us when we tell you this was a stone cold robbery. Maludrottu was dejected then totally surprised when he got the verdict. Kelly landed on the stats over double the amout of punches and his normally cut up face was almost without damage.

Can the judges be just that plain incompetant?? I don't believe they can be that stupid. I think theirs no doubt whatsoever that they where bought, the swiss judges card was a shocker. Those fans should have tore that place apart and strung up the judges!

Not saying I agree with it but they ar ethe facts of life. The Champion is the Champion and you have to beat him. In a draw the title stay's withthe champion it is not declared vacanbt is it?

Hatton, Eubank and Calzaghe ripped their worlds titles from their opponents whereas Kelly boxed well but was hardly SRL was he, be honest?

he won yes, but he was at home, was the challenger and the other guy was up against it. The judges were wrong but that is how it is.

Charles Giles is the Chairman and doesn't get paid anything and for me the fight was alot closer than people are stating here. Adam Smith is so one-sided he always influences people. Also, When Morrison got beat (Shit night all round for Gilmour) it was obvious that the fight was a pre-record as Smith and Watt said. Great result, it's about time one of these foreigners got a result on foreign ground" So why was the main event any different. IMO Kelly won the fight but not by the country mile you lot seem to have it by. Adam Smith is very good at glossing over thing in favour of the fighter he knows.

Not a travesty in the Brodie/Jorin style but possibly an unfair one. Remember a Champion just has to defend his title the Challenger has to TAKE the title.

Also, Gilmour was moaning at everyone in tye ring and singled out Charles Giles.. Why didn';t he point out the EBU Supervisor for interview so he could explain the decsion. He whinged at everybody bar those who were directly involved.

Is that because he was having a nice liquid fuelled luch with the EBU Supervisor and Judges on Saturday afternoon in the Hotel?

Perhaps all that wine they downed clouded their vision.

Giles was an easy target and should have not have given an interview.

I totally disagree with the statement about the champion only having to defend his title. What bearing does or rather SHOULD this have on scoring. Does that mean any close rounds should automatically be scored for the champ. Perhaps in Tennis any close line calls should go in favour ot the champ, or if the defending champ gets a ball close to the pocket the referee should push it in for him, or perhaps Chelsea should only have to draw with their opponents to get 3 points?

It's exactly the acceptance of that kind of comment which makes boxing the laughing stock it often is regarded as. People tear into John Inverdale when he mocks boxing, but can you blame him when people involved in the sport believe that judging who wins a bout should be swayed by who the champion is.

I've not yet seen the fight, so cannot comment on the validity of the judginig in this fight, but I am not prepared to accept that champions should be given a bit of leeway in the scoring. Whether a fight is close or not, the right man (not always easy to tell admittedly) should get the nod.

Remember a Champion just has to defend his title the Challenger has to TAKE the title.

boxingchat wrote:Remember a Champion just has to defend his title the Challenger has to TAKE the title.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:My sentence does not contradict it at all. I stated clearly that your statement that the champion need only defend his title was fallacious. You were implying that in a close fight it should therefore go to the champion, if this is not what you intended fair enough but that is how it looks.

Part of the problem is that there are no hard and fast rules to judging so far as I can see. The holy grail appears to be effective aggression, followed by ring generalship and defence. These are the most important criteria from my discussions with professional judges. However, the judges I have spoken to are in agreement that the business of judging a fight remains too subjective. How do you define effective aggression? Is it keeping your opponent on the back foot, is it number of shots landed, or do you favour the fighter who throws the more eye catching shots?

Some judges will go for eyecatching shots in fights, rewarding the fighter landing the more punishing looking blows. Others are impressed by workrate and aggression, even when not effective.

Personally when scoring a fight, I tend to ignore the number of blows thrown, and concentrate on who is landing the cleaner blows, not neccesarily the harder ones. I look at who dominates the greatest period of the round, and who appears to be controlling the tempo and distance. Where both fighters land similar numbers of shots then the ring generalship and defensive nous will be taken into account. I reward fighters who are clean punchers and who are able to dictate terms, rather than fighters who throw countless shots but land very few clean blows. This is why for instance, I had Danny winning against Skelton fairly clearly. Although there were a lot of close rounds, Matt simply wasn't effective often enough, too many shots were blocked, cuffing, or hit the top of the head, or landed with the incorrect part of the glove.

There is no single all encompassing manual for judges, the sanctioning bodies and boards of control have their own guidelines as far as I know there is no single unified set of rules governing how judges award fights.

I had a recent discussion with a prominent Las Vegas judge, who told me that whilst he agreed with me that for instance, 10-10 rounds should be used more often, that in practice the Las Vegas commission frowned heavily on such practices, and would therefore not appoint judges who score a lot of 10-10 rounds for big fights. There is an unwritten rule therefore which discourages judges from actually using their discretion. The same is also true of 10-8 rounds.

I would estimate I have seen about 50-fights live.

Despite not being a professional judge, I have generally found most judges I've spoken with to be in agreement with the criteria used.

boxingchat wrote:Your very quote contradicts your last sentance.

Answer me this then, how do you score a fight? Enlighten me? Many people, including Adam Smith, criticise a decision but few have an idea how to actually score a fight.

So on what basis is your comment being made, how many fights have you actually watched live? How much do you know about judging. Do you actually know the rules of Boxing?

Come on enlighten us?

boxingchat wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:My sentence does not contradict it at all. I stated clearly that your statement that the champion need only defend his title was fallacious. You were implying that in a close fight it should therefore go to the champion, if this is not what you intended fair enough but that is how it looks.

Part of the problem is that there are no hard and fast rules to judging so far as I can see. The holy grail appears to be effective aggression, followed by ring generalship and defence. These are the most important criteria from my discussions with professional judges. However, the judges I have spoken to are in agreement that the business of judging a fight remains too subjective. How do you define effective aggression? Is it keeping your opponent on the back foot, is it number of shots landed, or do you favour the fighter who throws the more eye catching shots?

Some judges will go for eyecatching shots in fights, rewarding the fighter landing the more punishing looking blows. Others are impressed by workrate and aggression, even when not effective.

Personally when scoring a fight, I tend to ignore the number of blows thrown, and concentrate on who is landing the cleaner blows, not neccesarily the harder ones. I look at who dominates the greatest period of the round, and who appears to be controlling the tempo and distance. Where both fighters land similar numbers of shots then the ring generalship and defensive nous will be taken into account. I reward fighters who are clean punchers and who are able to dictate terms, rather than fighters who throw countless shots but land very few clean blows. This is why for instance, I had Danny winning against Skelton fairly clearly. Although there were a lot of close rounds, Matt simply wasn't effective often enough, too many shots were blocked, cuffing, or hit the top of the head, or landed with the incorrect part of the glove.

There is no single all encompassing manual for judges, the sanctioning bodies and boards of control have their own guidelines as far as I know there is no single unified set of rules governing how judges award fights.

I had a recent discussion with a prominent Las Vegas judge, who told me that whilst he agreed with me that for instance, 10-10 rounds should be used more often, that in practice the Las Vegas commission frowned heavily on such practices, and would therefore not appoint judges who score a lot of 10-10 rounds for big fights. There is an unwritten rule therefore which discourages judges from actually using their discretion. The same is also true of 10-8 rounds.

I would estimate I have seen about 50-fights live.

Despite not being a professional judge, I have generally found most judges I've spoken with to be in agreement with the criteria used.

James, I actually respect your knowledge and sometimes you get a good grasp of the business as well. But you are getting over sinsitive, my resposne was for achybreaky's comments not yours, they must have crossed. And only fifty figts live, armchair fan, been to over 1,000 at least.

achybreaky wrote:

boxingchat wrote:Your very quote contradicts your last sentance.

Answer me this then, how do you score a fight? Enlighten me? Many people, including Adam Smith, criticise a decision but few have an idea how to actually score a fight.

So on what basis is your comment being made, how many fights have you actually watched live? How much do you know about judging. Do you actually know the rules of Boxing?

Come on enlighten us?

I take it this is the post that was directed at me, the amount of fights i have watched live or otherwise has absolutely no bearing in this case. Lets take the cold hard facts and not some claim that people were drinking all day somehow affected the result.

The punches landed in the kelly fight tell there own tale... kelly landed roughly 158 to the italians 78 therefore this was not a close fight and kelly clearly won this.

The champ should not simply have to turn up to keep his belt.

Adam smith may indeed be in no position to judge a fight but then i feel Johnny nelson would be and he felt that it was a travesty also.. so are you claiming that you have a greater knowledge of boxing than a long serving top class boxer?

Also the fact that NOBODY has agreed with your take on the fight and you feel the need to try and show some insider knowledge of what happened that afternoon in the hotel in belfast as some indicator that your opinion is correct and everybody elses is far off the mark as we 'dont really understand the business' is very arrogant and i actually doubt if you saw the fight at all.

Also the fact that you cannot say a nice thing about fighters who are not promoted by FW means that you are in no place to give a bias judgement on any fight.