Page 1 of 1
Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 04:57
by Beeston
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.
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 05:57
by Gazmac81
it wasnt on the Tv on tuesday mate
havent heard anyone complaining about the result
meant to have been a good fight though
MArtin Power comes on here and says he saw it so he can maybe give you the details
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.
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 06:09
by Beeston
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....
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 10:54
by Gazmac81
it can work both ways
My Bro beat Tony Docherty in wales on a big sports network show
and on FWTV they were complaining that Micky Vann was notorious for giving the away fighters the result
Seems basically what there saying is that the away fighter shouldnt win
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....
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 13:25
by Counter-puncher
if arthur did deserve the W over Bhatia my guess is having been in more competitive fights would have been a big factor.
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 02 Jul 2009, 13:52
by ERIC GUY
its on GUY sports!!!
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 03 Jul 2009, 02:41
by Londonirish
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...
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 03 Jul 2009, 07:30
by Counter-puncher
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...
doesn't seem to me bhatia has quite the reflexes or class to keep his hands as low as he often does.
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 03 Jul 2009, 08:19
by Shirow
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.
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 05 Jul 2009, 15:40
by alexpaterson
I was reading Boxing News a few weeks back and there was an interview with Williams trainer who trains Bhatia and was saying how Bhatia would beat Lindsay and how good he is on this showing will he have any hope against Lindsay (who of late has really impressed me)
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 07 Jul 2009, 09:08
by Counter-puncher
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.
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 07 Jul 2009, 12:35
by Dioufy
Shocker. Bhatia was a lot of peoples' choice for prospect 2009.
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 07 Jul 2009, 12:36
by Counter-puncher
Dioufy wrote:Shocker. Bhatia was a lot of peoples' choice for prospect 2009.
and a few people's choice for 'most likely to lose when he finally has a competitive fight'
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 07 Jul 2009, 12:39
by Dioufy
I can't really comment on that. I believe I have only seen the Callaghan fight, and it was impossible to really judge him by that. I wasn't one of the people who choose Bhatia... I believe I choose Appleby, and look how good by prediction turned out.
In 2009 he got smashed up and is contemplating retirement.
Re: Was the Akaash Bhatia fight televised?
Posted: 07 Jul 2009, 14:09
by mickwilliamson
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
one cut on top of head one on right eye bruise under left eye