BoxRec

Agreed, your last point is very valid indeed.

Who is this one directed to? It would appear you are agreeing with yourself. I can only concur that you agree with my fine suggestion that the commentators or even the officials make it clear what the scoring criteria are.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Who is this one directed to? It would appear you are agreeing with yourself. I can only concur that you agree with my fine suggestion that the commentators or even the officials make it clear what the scoring criteria are.

You, and yes you are right.

I do find it bizzare how difficult it seems to be to find any kind of official documentation on the scoring of fights. Perhaps you can enlighten me, but doesn't each commision/sanctioning body hold conferences on scoring for their members. So for instance the IBF have their own conferences on scoring, whilst the same judges who are accredited IBF officials, might also attend a Nevada State Athletic commission conference, and also a BBBofC conference, in theory one judge could attend all three if they were licensed to judge world title fights?

boxingchat wrote:

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.

No, three judges all scored from differnt sides and all gave it to the Italian so they are either right or seriously bent.

It may have been a long time ago , but think primo Carnera . Apparently Maludrottu has had a few close decisions and was lucky to get a MD while defending his title in Madrid .

I did not know that the EBU was based in Italy. If so, this could have inflenced the outcome. Or could the officals, although none from Italy have gone so far in the opposite direction against Kelly to avoid hometown favoritism?

It appears that these three saw a fight that no one else saw. I talked to a British friend of mine who does an excellent job of scoring with great impartiality. He recalled having Kelly up by a solid 6-7 points.

Jack

boxingchat wrote:

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.

So you don't actually know how to score a fight then as that was my question. How can you comment if you don't know what the judges are looking at. Punches thrown are a part of it but not all of it. How many of hose punches were correct and scored on the target area? Do you see all sides of the ring on TV? No, three judges all scored from differnt sides and all gave it to the Italian so they are either right or seriously bent.

The EBU are Italian based and foir what it's worth I think Kelly won the fight but it was certainly not as bad as Gilmour thinks. Bad but not on the scale of "Brinks Mat".

Ah the old you cant comment on boxing if your not involved in boxing line, that tactic has been tried before on here and has not been to successful if i remember. Im not a judge but i will still give my opinion if you dont mind and im not going to run through a list of what im looking for in fights to please you.

It was as bad as gilmour thought as the vast majority of people on here, in the press and in the studio on the night thought so aswell.

I see the BBBofC have launched an official protest to the EBU over the scoring of this bout.

That is good news. It was perhaps a little too much to expect the BBBofC to pass comment in the immediate aftermath of the fight, local commisions cannot really afford to make knee jerk reactions as they can easily end up with egg on their face big time.

First of all i agree Kelly was robbed after watching the fight, Maludrottu was strong and determined but one dimensional and got outboxed, can't argue a case for him winning at all i'm afraid and as for 118-111 as a score well....there is nothing objective about it but that scoring was corrupt.

And secondly i don't agree with the challenger having to take the champions title thing either. Each round should be scored on it's own merits and the person who wins the most rounds come the end of the fight wins IMO.

Boxingchat i think your just defending the decision cause you hate Tommy Gilmour

steve689 wrote:And secondly i don't agree with the challenger having to take the champions title thing either. Each round should be scored on it's own merits and the person who wins the most rounds come the end of the fight wins IMO.

As my earlier post shows I agree with you 100% and I honestly can't understand people who argue against this view.

Just been watching the undercard bouts, a bit late but still. Shame to see Barry Morrison lose his unbeaten record, he was impressive in his one round KO of Dean Hickman but came across a more experienced opponent in Mutu. The Romanian had previously contested a European title shot over 12 rounds so it was strange to see him in with Morrison. But still i am sure Morrison can learn from the experience and come back a better fighter, a British title shot is on the horizon for him maybe.

I was interested to see Martin Lindsay fight after hearing good things about him, he caught Hooper with a peach of a shot and looked impressive. Will be interesting to see him step in with a more durable opponent as he moves on. Interestingly i don't think ref Sean Russell called the bout off straight away you know, the commentators said it was a timely stoppage but i have a sneaking suspicion Russell was waving "no knockdown" and ruling it a slip at first until Hooper basically made it clear he wanted no more. Not a problem just an observation.

And George Hillyard..what a punch that was he caught Healy with! I wish Hillyward would knuckle down and become more dedicated, he seems to lack focus and that showed when he lost to Ernie Smith. He walked straight in to a big left hook off Healy and showed balls to get up from that, it appears he was losing the fight until that huge punch he found from somewhere.

Bob Mee of Boxing News had it 117-111 for Kelly.

Forgot to say last night, but a big to the board for acting on this. A firm, clear, professional complaint - sets the example.

I agree well done to the board, obviously that bumbling Charles Giles wasn't in control of the complaint, he's probably still picking the splinters out of his arse after getting off that fence he firmly sat on last Friday. Less boozing and more attention paid to the actual fights next time Charlie

Its good to hear that the BBBofC are looking into this matter but in reality what can they do? They can't change the result so the best Kelly can hope for is a rematch I suppose.