So guys, was it a fair call?
I have seen Bhatia about seven times on telly and liked what I saw, though the opposition was generally overmatched.
Any info would be appreciated.
Beeston wrote:I didn't catch the action on Tuesday, nor any of the replays.... but have checked the results on the schedule and see that he lost 96-95, and the referee was the king of controversy, Dave Parris.
So guys, was it a fair call?
I have seen Bhatia about seven times on telly and liked what I saw, though the opposition was generally overmatched.
Any info would be appreciated.
Beeston wrote:Ah, ok.
I always feel that when a one point victory is awarded and Dave Parris is in charge there is a bit of controversy![]()
Especially when a journeyman clearly beats the house fighter..... stinks really.
IMO there should be a single ringside judge for all fights other than those where three judges would normally be employed - let the referee referee. Every show I have been to there are several refs picking their nose at ringside.... just give them an extra £20 and a piece of paper to score the fight....
mrrocco wrote:Arthur deserved the win, though maybe by only 1 or 2 rounds. Having said that, Battia was more busy, but Arthur blocked a lot of them and landed the better more telling shots
Now I know that the state of someone's face doesn't always tell the whole story of a fight - Bhatia's face was horrible - bumps, bruises and cut all over the shop. He looked like he'd been attacked with a hammer again and again. The next morning must've looked terrible.
Bhatia showed a lot of heart, as did to a lesser extent Arthur. BHatia just isn't that hard to hit and isn't the biggest puncher
doesn't seem to me bhatia has quite the reflexes or class to keep his hands as low as he often does.Londonirish wrote:mrrocco wrote:Arthur deserved the win, though maybe by only 1 or 2 rounds. Having said that, Battia was more busy, but Arthur blocked a lot of them and landed the better more telling shots
Now I know that the state of someone's face doesn't always tell the whole story of a fight - Bhatia's face was horrible - bumps, bruises and cut all over the shop. He looked like he'd been attacked with a hammer again and again. The next morning must've looked terrible.
Bhatia showed a lot of heart, as did to a lesser extent Arthur. BHatia just isn't that hard to hit and isn't the biggest puncher
Spot on...
Shirow wrote:I was surprised that Bhatia was looking to brawl all night. He was missing loads of lead hooks. I think the difference mostly came down to fundamentals - Arthur had constant upper body and head movement and high hands and Akaash didn't.
and a few people's choice for 'most likely to lose when he finally has a competitive fight'Dioufy wrote:Shocker. Bhatia was a lot of peoples' choice for prospect 2009.
one cut on top of head one on right eye bruise under left eyemrrocco wrote:Arthur deserved the win, though maybe by only 1 or 2 rounds. Having said that, Battia was more busy, but Arthur blocked a lot of them and landed the better more telling shots
Now I know that the state of someone's face doesn't always tell the whole story of a fight - Bhatia's face was horrible - bumps, bruises and cut all over the shop. He looked like he'd been attacked with a hammer again and again. The next morning must've looked terrible.
Bhatia showed a lot of heart, as did to a lesser extent Arthur. BHatia just isn't that hard to hit and isn't the biggest puncher