BoxRec

Dear Paul & Mickey, I know this is a couple of weeks late but I'd just like to say that you're both, in my view, a disgrace to the sport. Your judging, along with the seemingly inept/corrupt (delete as applicable) Italian, of the Huck/Arslan fight was a joke. You should hang your heads in shame. I hope whatever you get from the German promoters is worth it.

fat thomas has previous with dimitrenko vs chambers

PM me your phone numbers, and I will get them to call you, then you can explain to them personally.

its laughable, that the response to someone observing poor judging or officiating is to attempt to oblige them to privately contact those concerned, rather than address the real problem, which is the absolute post-fight blackout of any accountability on their behalf.

What looks worse, really? The people concerned, directly via the BBBofC, or via a news outlet or a public forum, being accountable for their decisions to the people who whether you like it or not, fund the sport, or, another 'insider' essentially attempting to close off any communication in a heavy-handed manner. As if every member of this forum is itching to hand their number out to have to explain to the officials why they would dare to comment on their performance.

We buy the tickets, and the sh1t you take the advert money for, we subscribe to the channels that show the fights. From that money you pay your fees to the board, you pay the fighters, anything and everything else. The money to the board pays the officials. In any other walk of life, if you pay someone directly or indirectly you are entitled to pay attention to what they do for that money, and comment on the results of that expenditure.

Whether you as an individual are a license-holder or not, you are in that realm, part of the same analysis.

ERIC GUY wrote:PM me your phone numbers, and I will get them to call you, then you can explain to them personally.

You sir are a joke

@matt___s wrote:

its laughable, that the response to someone observing poor judging or officiating is to attempt to oblige them to privately contact those concerned, rather than address the real problem, which is the absolute post-fight blackout of any accountability on their behalf.

What looks worse, really? The people concerned, directly via the BBBofC, or via a news outlet or a public forum, being accountable for their decisions to the people who whether you like it or not, fund the sport, or, another 'insider' essentially attempting to close off any communication in a heavy-handed manner. As if every member of this forum is itching to hand their number out to have to explain to the officials why they would dare to comment on their performance.

We buy the tickets, and the sh1t you take the advert money for, we subscribe to the channels that show the fights. From that money you pay your fees to the board, you pay the fighters, anything and everything else. The money to the board pays the officials. In any other walk of life, if you pay someone directly or indirectly you are entitled to pay attention to what they do for that money, and comment on the results of that expenditure.

Whether you as an individual are a license-holder or not, you are in that realm, part of the same analysis.

Excellent post.

@matt___s wrote:

its laughable, that the response to someone observing poor judging or officiating is to attempt to oblige them to privately contact those concerned, rather than address the real problem, which is the absolute post-fight blackout of any accountability on their behalf.

What looks worse, really? The people concerned, directly via the BBBofC, or via a news outlet or a public forum, being accountable for their decisions to the people who whether you like it or not, fund the sport, or, another 'insider' essentially attempting to close off any communication in a heavy-handed manner. As if every member of this forum is itching to hand their number out to have to explain to the officials why they would dare to comment on their performance.

We buy the tickets, and the sh1t you take the advert money for, we subscribe to the channels that show the fights. From that money you pay your fees to the board, you pay the fighters, anything and everything else. The money to the board pays the officials. In any other walk of life, if you pay someone directly or indirectly you are entitled to pay attention to what they do for that money, and comment on the results of that expenditure.

Whether you as an individual are a license-holder or not, you are in that realm, part of the same analysis.

This. A thousand, thousand times, this.



PS: Eric, if your mate was a plumber & flooded someone's kitchen, would you throw your weight about at that bloke for daring to be disappointed with the service rendered? I think not. & therein is the problem; they're accountable to who pays them, which is the promoter. Us poor fvcks are meant to sit there & take it with due reverence & be grateful someone is willing to render awful decisions on our behalf, which is frankly a great steaming pile of shite & personal loyalties aside, I think you know it.

@matt___s wrote:

its laughable, that the response to someone observing poor judging or officiating is to attempt to oblige them to privately contact those concerned, rather than address the real problem, which is the absolute post-fight blackout of any accountability on their behalf.

What looks worse, really? The people concerned, directly via the BBBofC, or via a news outlet or a public forum, being accountable for their decisions to the people who whether you like it or not, fund the sport, or, another 'insider' essentially attempting to close off any communication in a heavy-handed manner. As if every member of this forum is itching to hand their number out to have to explain to the officials why they would dare to comment on their performance.

We buy the tickets, and the sh1t you take the advert money for, we subscribe to the channels that show the fights. From that money you pay your fees to the board, you pay the fighters, anything and everything else. The money to the board pays the officials. In any other walk of life, if you pay someone directly or indirectly you are entitled to pay attention to what they do for that money, and comment on the results of that expenditure.

Whether you as an individual are a license-holder or not, you are in that realm, part of the same analysis.

Well said Matt

Hi readers

I know for a fact that 2 of our BBBC referee/judges worked in Germany and judged in favour of the away boy, next time they were appointed by the IBF to work in Germany the German promotor rejected them. At least these 2 judges can hold their heads up and know they are honest.

Datsue wrote:

@matt___s wrote:

its laughable, that the response to someone observing poor judging or officiating is to attempt to oblige them to privately contact those concerned, rather than address the real problem, which is the absolute post-fight blackout of any accountability on their behalf.

What looks worse, really? The people concerned, directly via the BBBofC, or via a news outlet or a public forum, being accountable for their decisions to the people who whether you like it or not, fund the sport, or, another 'insider' essentially attempting to close off any communication in a heavy-handed manner. As if every member of this forum is itching to hand their number out to have to explain to the officials why they would dare to comment on their performance.

We buy the tickets, and the sh1t you take the advert money for, we subscribe to the channels that show the fights. From that money you pay your fees to the board, you pay the fighters, anything and everything else. The money to the board pays the officials. In any other walk of life, if you pay someone directly or indirectly you are entitled to pay attention to what they do for that money, and comment on the results of that expenditure.

Whether you as an individual are a license-holder or not, you are in that realm, part of the same analysis.

This. A thousand, thousand times, this.



PS: Eric, if your mate was a plumber & flooded someone's kitchen, would you throw your weight about at that bloke for daring to be disappointed with the service rendered? I think not. & therein is the problem; they're accountable to who pays them, which is the promoter. Us poor fvcks are meant to sit there & take it with due reverence & be grateful someone is willing to render awful decisions on our behalf, which is frankly a great steaming pile of shite & personal loyalties aside, I think you know it.

Well said lads, well said

boxfan3 wrote:Hi readers

I know for a fact that 2 of our BBBC referee/judges worked in Germany and judged in favour of the away boy, next time they were appointed by the IBF to work in Germany the German promotor rejected them. At least these 2 judges can hold their heads up and know they are honest.

This is annoyingly the problem and shows the conflict of interest in our sport.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

boxfan3 wrote:Hi readers

I know for a fact that 2 of our BBBC referee/judges worked in Germany and judged in favour of the away boy, next time they were appointed by the IBF to work in Germany the German promotor rejected them. At least these 2 judges can hold their heads up and know they are honest.

This is annoyingly the problem and shows the conflict of interest in our sport.

Absolutely. The f**king promoter should be in no position to approve officials. What a load of sh1te that is.

dondada wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

boxfan3 wrote:Hi readers

I know for a fact that 2 of our BBBC referee/judges worked in Germany and judged in favour of the away boy, next time they were appointed by the IBF to work in Germany the German promotor rejected them. At least these 2 judges can hold their heads up and know they are honest.

This is annoyingly the problem and shows the conflict of interest in our sport.

Absolutely. The f**king promoter should be in no position to approve officials. What a load of sh1te that is.

And I've said this for a long time. Massive conflict of interest.

The Insider wrote:

dondada wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:
This is annoyingly the problem and shows the conflict of interest in our sport.

Absolutely. The f**king promoter should be in no position to approve officials. What a load of sh1te that is.

And I've said this for a long time. Massive conflict of interest.

What a load of bollocks , give me your phone nunber ,, what for , , tell you what i'll say its this ,, has far has one ref goes you only have to cast your mind back to the Hatton fight days , and draw your own conclusions .

And if you want my phone number not a problem pm me yours and your address and i''l return the favor

ERIC GUY wrote:PM me your phone numbers, and I will get them to call you, then you can explain to them personally.

Nob

ive been watching and involved in this game for a fairly long while and i STILL believe fights should be judged, by the officials appointed to do it, in as honest and impartial manner as they can...how long before the men in white coats lead me away forever?

(both these two have previous)

JLP - how did you score the fight? - I think its a bit much to call a 7-5 margin in favour of Hook a "joke". The general consensus on the round by round thread that the fight was very close.

I do agree that Arslan should have sneaked a decision, but there are surely many many many other fights in which the scorecards were far far worst. I think the 9-3 verdict of the Italian now that a joke.

But I think a 7-5 swing either way was acceptable. I believe Rawling and Jones scored it for Huck, whereas Bunce scored it for Arslan.

ERIC GUY wrote:PM me your phone numbers, and I will get them to call you, then you can explain to them personally.

everytime you post you name drop in some way or other

you seriously need to get over yourself.... your just a cameraman for fucks sake

sweetscience wrote:

ERIC GUY wrote:PM me your phone numbers, and I will get them to call you, then you can explain to them personally.

everytime you post you name drop in some way or other

you seriously need to get over yourself.... your just a cameraman for fucks sake

And a fxckin good one at that

sweetscience wrote:

ERIC GUY wrote:PM me your phone numbers, and I will get them to call you, then you can explain to them personally.

everytime you post you name drop in some way or other

you seriously need to get over yourself.... your just a cameraman for fucks sake

Never noticed before and eric always seemed like a decent poster. I'm sure he is sick of people just facelessky slagging off officialls because they disagree with them

stujones wrote:JLP - how did you score the fight? - I think its a bit much to call a 7-5 margin in favour of Hook a "joke". The general consensus on the round by round thread that the fight was very close.

I do agree that Arslan should have sneaked a decision, but there are surely many many many other fights in which the scorecards were far far worst. I think the 9-3 verdict of the Italian now that a joke.

But I think a 7-5 swing either way was acceptable. I believe Rawling and Jones scored it for Huck, whereas Bunce scored it for Arslan.

Anyone who scored the fight close doesn't know how to score a fight. That sounds emotive but it isn't. In fact, it's anything but. I sometimes think people (pundits, commentators and fans) end up giving rounds to the house fighter because they expect the judges to do the same, particularly in Germany. This is, of course, wrong. Every fight should be judged on it's individual merits based on the action in the ring only. I had the fight to Arslan by 5 or 6 rounds. He's not a technically gifted fighter but he thoroughly worked Huck over. The crowd knew who really got the better of the fight as did both fighters.

Adamj1987 wrote:Never noticed before and eric always seemed like a decent poster. I'm sure he is sick of people just facelessky slagging off officialls because they disagree with them

his last 3 posts:-

1) Spoke to Leon Williams
2) has the phone numbers of these two judges
3) will speak to Dave the producer at Sky

sweetscience wrote:

ERIC GUY wrote:PM me your phone numbers, and I will get them to call you, then you can explain to them personally.

everytime you post you name drop in some way or other

you seriously need to get over yourself.... your just a cameraman for fucks sake

The reason Eric is in a position to name drop is because he knows well and is genuinely friendly with pretty much everyone in the game.

JLP wrote:

stujones wrote:JLP - how did you score the fight? - I think its a bit much to call a 7-5 margin in favour of Hook a "joke". The general consensus on the round by round thread that the fight was very close.

I do agree that Arslan should have sneaked a decision, but there are surely many many many other fights in which the scorecards were far far worst. I think the 9-3 verdict of the Italian now that a joke.

But I think a 7-5 swing either way was acceptable. I believe Rawling and Jones scored it for Huck, whereas Bunce scored it for Arslan.

Anyone who scored the fight close doesn't know how to score a fight. That sounds emotive but it isn't. In fact, it's anything but. I sometimes think people (pundits, commentators and fans) end up giving rounds to the house fighter because they expect the judges to do the same, particularly in Germany. This is, of course, wrong. Every fight should be judged on it's individual merits based on the action in the ring only. I had the fight to Arslan by 5 or 6 rounds. He's not a technically gifted fighter but he thoroughly worked Huck over. The crowd knew who really got the better of the fight as did both fighters.

I personally feel giving Arslan 9 rounds it a bit much the other way. We'll agree to disagree. His pressure wasn't as effective towards the end.... Huck was landing more with the jab etc, not power punches but scoring punches. He won for me, but I think Huck won more than 3 rounds.

I thought some of the rounds were open to interpretation a bit as Huck was doing more on the outside towards the end, and Arslan was looking effective but only in bursts as he pinned Huck.

I can see 8-4 Arslan but not beyond that sorry.