BoxRec

The article on the Michael Sprott fight is pretty disgraceful reading and whoever wrote it needs to take a look at themselves IMO. They are trying to blame the referee more than Sprott for the actions last night. One thing Sprott was considerably hurt by that shot and his legs were gone for at least 5-6 seconds after getting up, also look at his eyes once he is knocked down they are all over the place. Could he have continued possibly, but we have seen far worse British stoppages than that and the fighter hasn't acted in the same disgraceful way as Sprott.

Whoever wrote that article really needs to have a look in the mirror.

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/ref-ta ... fficiating

A lot of poor articles on boxrec.

I wrote it. I think it's f*cking super.

There's an article on Great British comebacks which is shit, as well. Who do they think they are etc etc?

The article seemed fair to me.

dondada wrote:I wrote it. I think it's f*cking super.

Camcas wrote:

dondada wrote:I wrote it. I think it's f*cking super.

Tell you what, write an article with your perspective and I'll consider publishing it. Can't say fairer than that.

In the headline it says that Sprott 'reacts badly' and also 'Despite the clear incompetence/corruption, fighters cannot be allowed to dispute decisions in this manner and Sprott should be disciplined.'

dondada wrote:

Camcas wrote:

dondada wrote:I wrote it. I think it's f*cking super.

Tell you what, write an article with your perspective and I'll consider publishing it. Can't say fairer than that.

In the headline it says that Sprott 'reacts badly' and also 'Despite the clear incompetence/corruption, fighters cannot be allowed to dispute decisions in this manner and Sprott should be disciplined.'

I agree in principle, but he was winning the fight, got caught with a good en, but still looked in good shape. I was impressed with Sprott, even the German crowd are growing tired of the German corruption, they love their boxing, it's big business and they want the big fights, but if every fighter has to go to Germany to win by KO or lose, then the fans ain't getting the best, because the best won't come. Swiss referee = neutral guy, doesn't want the controversy, likes to play it safe then go back to his safe haven.

Interestingly it was the third time that that referee has done a Gerber fight in 12 months...maybe he knew what those watching knew and that Gerber was in trouble having been bailed out by the judges last time he was out (Sigl was also the 3rd man when Gerber "beat" Harris).

I'll be controversial but I wish referees were partial. Imagine if this referee was doing the Chavez v Martinez fight last...

Dreadful article is a bit harsh, I thought the stoppage was iffy and Sprott certainly could have gone on, as for Sprott losing his rag and pushing the ref? Well that was very poor and shouldn't have happened at all and Sprott should be ashamed but he did see the light instantly maybe after his trainer gave him a nudge but lets not go mental about it.

I actually thought the ref was very sporting the way he accepted the apology and held Sprotts arm up and accepted a hug.

Datsue wrote:There's an article on Great British comebacks which is shit, as well. Who do they think they are etc etc?

It's tounge in cheek - it certainly isn't shit.

Final round wrote:Dreadful article is a bit harsh, I thought the stoppage was iffy and Sprott certainly could have gone on, as for Sprott losing his rag and pushing the ref? Well that was very poor and shouldn't have happened at all and Sprott should be ashamed but he did see the light instantly maybe after his trainer gave him a nudge but lets not go mental about it.

I actually thought the ref was very sporting the way he accepted the apology and held Sprotts arm up and accepted a hug.

Lol either that or he felt he might be battered!

mugabi wrote:

Final round wrote:Dreadful article is a bit harsh, I thought the stoppage was iffy and Sprott certainly could have gone on, as for Sprott losing his rag and pushing the ref? Well that was very poor and shouldn't have happened at all and Sprott should be ashamed but he did see the light instantly maybe after his trainer gave him a nudge but lets not go mental about it.

I actually thought the ref was very sporting the way he accepted the apology and held Sprotts arm up and accepted a hug.

Lol either that or he felt he might be battered!

He definitely did when he took the swallow dive but seemed to accept his apology after.

I remember Butterbean lightly jabbing a presenter on the Big Breakfast in the face. I seem to remember the guy (was it Richard Bacon/Johnny Vaughan/some long forgotten no mark?) ended up with a nosebleed. Anyway, point (?) is I think the referee was more pushed and as he was rebounding back off the ropes towards a well-muscled heavyweight boxer and then decided he'd better hit the floor in fear of a follow up.

Don't think the ref was trying to get Sprott in trouble...

Not a dreadful article in my opinion but a little miss-leading. I was gutted for Sprott, he won the first three rounds and was doing well till he got drilled and dropped hard. My problem with the piece is the notion that Sprott was fine to continue. He jumped up, wobbled all the way to the corner and when he raised his hands at 8/9 his kness gave a wee bit. I like to have seen it continue due to how the fight was going (the knockdown pulled Gerber back into it rather than established his position) but to me it was a 50/50 stoppage. It's easy to look at how Sprott reacted and know he could of fought on but when the ref reached 8 I didn't like the look of Sprott's legs.

There's much worse done and Germany isn't great but it's no where near the worst. Sai losing to Cox and Abril to Rios are the mark of either blatent cheating or incompetance. I don't think you can say which unless you know what's going on behind the scenes in each fight, and I certainly don't.

And yes the comebacks piece was garbage, tounge in cheek or not

fizzjambo wrote:Not a dreadful article in my opinion but a little miss-leading. I was gutted for Sprott, he won the first three rounds and was doing well till he got drilled and dropped hard. My problem with the piece is the notion that Sprott was fine to continue. He jumped up, wobbled all the way to the corner and when he raised his hands at 8/9 his kness gave a wee bit. I like to have seen it continue due to how the fight was going (the knockdown pulled Gerber back into it rather than established his position) but to me it was a 50/50 stoppage. It's easy to look at how Sprott reacted and know he could of fought on but when the ref reached 8 I didn't like the look of Sprott's legs.

There's much worse done and Germany isn't great but it's no where near the worst. Sai losing to Cox and Abril to Rios are the mark of either blatent cheating or incompetance. I don't think you can say which unless you know what's going on behind the scenes in each fight, and I certainly don't.

And yes the comebacks piece was garbage, tounge in cheek or not

I agree with all this. In this country we need to get our own house in order before we start criticising Germany again.

Lenny wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:Not a dreadful article in my opinion but a little miss-leading. I was gutted for Sprott, he won the first three rounds and was doing well till he got drilled and dropped hard. My problem with the piece is the notion that Sprott was fine to continue. He jumped up, wobbled all the way to the corner and when he raised his hands at 8/9 his kness gave a wee bit. I like to have seen it continue due to how the fight was going (the knockdown pulled Gerber back into it rather than established his position) but to me it was a 50/50 stoppage. It's easy to look at how Sprott reacted and know he could of fought on but when the ref reached 8 I didn't like the look of Sprott's legs.

There's much worse done and Germany isn't great but it's no where near the worst. Sai losing to Cox and Abril to Rios are the mark of either blatent cheating or incompetance. I don't think you can say which unless you know what's going on behind the scenes in each fight, and I certainly don't.

And yes the comebacks piece was garbage, tounge in cheek or not

I agree with all this. In this country we need to get our own house in order before we start criticising Germany again.

The Jamie Cox-Sai match WAS criticised:

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2011/charit ... le-victory

Actually, I'm a big supporter of officials generally as it's a very tough job.

I was told recently that two British referee's not sure of their names who were out in Germany judging went against the German boxer in World Title fights. Next time they were appointed to a fight in Germany they both got rejected. Thats all you need to know about Germany, they want officals who bend towards their boxers.

boxfan3 wrote:I was told recently that two British referee's not sure of their names who were out in Germany judging went against the German boxer in World Title fights. Next time they were appointed to a fight in Germany they both got rejected. Thats all you need to know about Germany, they want officals who bend towards their boxers.

Vaudeville Villain wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:

Datsue wrote:There's an article on Great British comebacks which is shit, as well. Who do they think they are etc etc?

It's tounge in cheek - it certainly isn't shit.

Have a heart. Trying to write something that's funny is a really tough and a brave move, especially in boxing where people go from irreverent to "how dare you make a joke about this wonderful, life and death sport". Trying to nail left field is equally as tough. It is a really fine line.

Why was there any need for somebody to write something funny though? I'm not having a go at Boxrec News, although it may not always be the first with every story I read 90% of the articles posted and by and large they are excellent. Eric Armit is brilliant and to be fair not many other sites would do so many regular interviews with debuting pro's. Bar the guy who hypes the living dayights out of the lad Goodwin (and to be fair bar his blatant biais you've got to give him credit, he does a load of legwork for the kid and his promoters who have to operate on the small hall circuit) almost every article is fair, even-handed and interesting. It might be a bit harsh but the above article was purile and pretty pointless in my opinion. It's aim was to raise a laugh and I can't see how it would

Feel I need to answer Fizzjambo's point. I work for Fight Options (Chris' promoters) in the real world, as well as writing for this site for fun (See the Hatton piece) This is something I want to continue to do due to the fact that Ian has been a great help over the years. During the Goodwin v Johanneson build up I wore my Fight Options hat, but when I reported it I wore my Boxrec hat and had him losing by one. This was despite one judge, plus other writers and viewers having Chris nicking it.

Think what I need to do is not attach my name to the FO articles so thanks for the feedback.

Vaudeville Villain wrote:My only real quibble, and I agree with you on this, is that once a writer starts to actively do stuff for a single promoter, and is seen as if not an employee then a close associate of said promoter, then they shouldn’t have a byline anymore and the article should go through as a press release, but that’s just me.

Quite. I used to love the 'Richard Maynard' bylines on Boxing Scene. Don't know if they're still on.

pocketrocket is fine. I've known him for ages and even before he did bits of PR, that's just what he writes like - he's very enthusiastic! I've already explained the distinctions to him and he knows what's what.

Vaudeville Villain wrote:PS There's nothing "fun" about online boxing writing. We're at the cutting edge of senseless time wasting.

Ha, if you look at it properly, we get paid nothing but get the same abuse as a well paid writer.

I am definitely going to stop using my name on company stuff. As things stand, I can talk about other issues in the sport as they don't clash with any FO interests.

Sadly, if and when the company expands I will have to knock here on the head, due to there being a huge conflict of interest.

dondada wrote:

Vaudeville Villain wrote:My only real quibble, and I agree with you on this, is that once a writer starts to actively do stuff for a single promoter, and is seen as if not an employee then a close associate of said promoter, then they shouldn’t have a byline anymore and the article should go through as a press release, but that’s just me.

Quite. I used to love the 'Richard Maynard' bylines on Boxing Scene. Don't know if they're still on.

pocketrocket is fine. I've known him for ages and even before he did bits of PR, that's just what he writes like - he's very enthusiastic! I've already explained the distinctions to him and he knows what's what.

Exactly. I always find, when you are doing an article from a fighters perspective, you have to encapsulate the enthusiasm they have. From the world champion, to the debutant. The article is about their dreams and ambitions. It isn't a grey piece.

Vaudeville Villain wrote:After all, we don’t just clamber onto our woman and then pump her in the missionary position until she’s pregnant, dead or the drugs/drink have worn off, do we? Nah, we let her grind on top, we flip it and flop it, we strike her about the face with our throbbing member and tell her the corrupt Chief Dick is going to give her something to plea bargain about, and then gag her, with our cock.

Back on form