BoxRec

Johnny Nelson says Ricky Burns's shocking draw is ruining boxing

Saturday night in Glasgow was so frustrating. It was frustrating for boxing, and even more frustrating for British boxing. In fact, it was sad.

Of course Ricky Burns's broken jaw added to it all but how he kept hold of his world title, no-one knows. Not even the most patriotic Scotsman would have denied Raymundo Beltran the night of his life.

We sat in the studio watching it slip away from the Scot and given that Britain has a reputation for being the fairest place in world boxing, it was just unbelievable when that draw was announced.

It is hard to defend what happened and there is no point flowering it up and trying to make excuses. You say what you see and we all saw it.

You can't blame Ricky Burns for this, you can't blame his trainer Billy Nelson so you don't really know who to point the finger at - apart from the judges. Honestly, how did that fight end a draw?

I had it three rounds up to Beltran, which I think most people would agree with. Ricky was put down; he spent the majority of the fight on the back foot being bullied; he was always playing second fiddle to Ray Bertran and had very limited success himself all night.
Johnny Nelson
Quotes of the week
The referee, Phil Edwards, did nothing, never mind deduct any points from Ricky even though he was grabbing and holding, all night. Listen I've done that myself and I am sure most boxers have, but two wrongs do not make a right!

And the last thing we want is this sort of decision stopping people coming over to Britain to box, because they are afraid of losing no matter what they do. We are the fairest people in the world, but the referee and in the end, the judges did Ricky so many favours it was untrue.

Someone, somewhere has to be held accountable because this sport shoots itself in the foot far too often as it is.

Shocking

The home-town decision exists but not here. But when local Scottish fight fans and Ricky Burns supporters walk out at the end embarrassed, shocked by the decision, you know it's shocking. It was just wrong and it's not good for the sport.

I had it three rounds up to Beltran, which I think most people would agree with. Ricky was put down; he spent the majority of the fight on the back foot being bullied; he was always playing second fiddle to Beltran and had very limited success himself all night.

I felt for Beltran because it was his chance to shine and win a world title and he did just that - or at least should've. He has been around for a while so he had to wait for this chance and he did everything he needed to do.

He should have been celebrating becoming a world champion, instead he is waiting to see if he can get another shot, or a rematch. Beltran has to go back home and try and see what he can do next, but the chances of a second fight is very, very, very slim. To say the least.

We will go into the conspiracy theories and the politics of it all and again that will do boxing no favours, especially because the build-up to that fight was great; there was a great atmosphere and it was just the way you want world titles to be put on.

The fight itself also proved one thing that I had feared: that Ricky Burns might be as good as he's going to get. No doubt that broken jaw played its part but the last two fights have seen no improvement from the lad.

Yes, he is a world champion but I don't think we are going to see his boxing get any better. Some fighters are world champions and that brings even more out of them I'm not convinced Ricky is one of those.

Knocking

Beltran is decent but the bottom line is he is an experienced sparring partner; despite that he was - whatever the scoring said - too good for Ricky. And it is hard to see how he is going to get back to the drawing board and get better.

If you have a broken jaw you are out of the loop for around a year. Now, what will the WBO do? Ricky is still their champion but given what happened do they say 'have a break' and have your comeback for the interim and then take on the real champion when he's back?

But whatever happens you have to give Ricky Burns all the credit in the world for getting through that fight. Like Muhammad Ali against Joe Frazier it left him clinging for dear life and somehow he did it. Can you imagine the pain?

His determination, bravery and heart were wonderful so please don't think I am knocking Ricky or criticising him in anyway.

But if I was a casual fan and had sat and watched that, I'd of thought 'wow!' what a fight. But when it was given to Ricky I'd have turned off my telly and probably wouldn't watch boxing again.

It was wrong and it was sad, so let's hope boxing gets through this as quickly as possible. And let's hope Ricky Burns makes a full recovery too.

jameswilson wrote:In World title fights a neutral referee and 3 neutral judges should be assigned unless the fight is between two fighters from the same nation in which case officials from that nation would be acceptable in most cases.

I'm not saying this would eliminate bad decisions (we all know the American judge scored it to Burns) but I think a big issue other countries have with us is Brit refs almost always being appointed to ref World title fights.

columbo wrote:

jameswilson wrote:In World title fights a neutral referee and 3 neutral judges should be assigned unless the fight is between two fighters from the same nation in which case officials from that nation would be acceptable in most cases.

I'm not saying this would eliminate bad decisions (we all know the American judge scored it to Burns) but I think a big issue other countries have with us is Brit refs almost always being appointed to ref World title fights.

I was saying that the other day. Im not sure how you can have fair results when you dont have neutral judges and referee's. Then again boxing is shady as hell and we all know it so what's the point in discussing fairness.

SNG wrote:

columbo wrote:

jameswilson wrote:In World title fights a neutral referee and 3 neutral judges should be assigned unless the fight is between two fighters from the same nation in which case officials from that nation would be acceptable in most cases.

I'm not saying this would eliminate bad decisions (we all know the American judge scored it to Burns) but I think a big issue other countries have with us is Brit refs almost always being appointed to ref World title fights.

I was saying that the other day. Im not sure how you can have fair results when you dont have neutral judges and referee's. Then again boxing is shady as hell and we all know it so what's the point in discussing fairness.

How can you decide if someone is truly neutral?

SNG wrote:

columbo wrote:

jameswilson wrote:In World title fights a neutral referee and 3 neutral judges should be assigned unless the fight is between two fighters from the same nation in which case officials from that nation would be acceptable in most cases.

I'm not saying this would eliminate bad decisions (we all know the American judge scored it to Burns) but I think a big issue other countries have with us is Brit refs almost always being appointed to ref World title fights.

I was saying that the other day. Im not sure how you can have fair results when you dont have neutral judges and referee's. Then again boxing is shady as hell and we all know it so what's the point in discussing fairness.

How can you decide if someone is truly neutral?

columbo wrote: That's true. It's not black and white admittedly. Saying that though, having a referee and judges that arent from the countries of either combatants is a start.

SNG wrote:

columbo wrote:

jameswilson wrote:In World title fights a neutral referee and 3 neutral judges should be assigned unless the fight is between two fighters from the same nation in which case officials from that nation would be acceptable in most cases.

I'm not saying this would eliminate bad decisions (we all know the American judge scored it to Burns) but I think a big issue other countries have with us is Brit refs almost always being appointed to ref World title fights.

I was saying that the other day. Im not sure how you can have fair results when you dont have neutral judges and referee's. Then again boxing is shady as hell and we all know it so what's the point in discussing fairness.

How can you decide if someone is truly neutral?

SNG wrote:

columbo wrote: That's true. It's not black and white admittedly. Saying that though, having a referee and judges that arent from the countries of either combatants is a start.

But that doesn't work either, there are countless examples off supposed neutral judges from other countries turning in seemingly terrible scorecards.

Final round wrote:I don't know about ruining boxing , it's tarnished our reputation around the world. I suppose the positives are the overall majority believe Beltran won, Matchroom believe it and have offered Beltran a immediate rematch when Ricky is better and the judges in question must feel a bit embarrassed to say the least.

dalcumly wrote:Did you notice that on the excellent 'fight collector' thread ,of the 44 press scores 26 of these had Burns winning at least 5 rounds of the 12. Of the three judges at the fight , one judge had Burns winning 6 rounds and the other had him winning 5 . The final judge had Burns winning 8 rounds.
Here's the point - was it a robbery because all 44 press reporters scored it for Beltran ? Because given all the scores I've seen and trying to reach some sort of average ,there are only very people who have scored it wildly in favour of Beltran. There are literally dozens of punters and 'experts' giving Burns 5 rounds at least . That being the case the simple arithmetic suggests that Beltran won either 6 or 7 rounds ,and of course the extra point for the knockdown. Using this calculation , to an outsider, it seems it was a relatively close fight - not a robbery.
Ricky and his manager should demand that Eddie Hearn contacts the WBO and ask if they can have a rematch with Beltran before a mandatory,and if that's acceptable , then purse bids for the rematch. I wouldn't automatically offer to defend in the USA.
And I'll add, I think Burns would win a rematch.

bripez wrote:

Final round wrote:I don't know about ruining boxing , it's tarnished our reputation around the world. I suppose the positives are the overall majority believe Beltran won, Matchroom believe it and have offered Beltran a immediate rematch when Ricky is better and the judges in question must feel a bit embarrassed to say the least.

We will see if the rematch actually happens.

Like all other controversial decisions, this will be chip paper tomorrow and forgotten about next week when we will all be talking about another different controversy.

columbo wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Did you notice that on the excellent 'fight collector' thread ,of the 44 press scores 26 of these had Burns winning at least 5 rounds of the 12. Of the three judges at the fight , one judge had Burns winning 6 rounds and the other had him winning 5 . The final judge had Burns winning 8 rounds.
Here's the point - was it a robbery because all 44 press reporters scored it for Beltran ? Because given all the scores I've seen and trying to reach some sort of average ,there are only very people who have scored it wildly in favour of Beltran. There are literally dozens of punters and 'experts' giving Burns 5 rounds at least . That being the case the simple arithmetic suggests that Beltran won either 6 or 7 rounds ,and of course the extra point for the knockdown. Using this calculation , to an outsider, it seems it was a relatively close fight - not a robbery.
Ricky and his manager should demand that Eddie Hearn contacts the WBO and ask if they can have a rematch with Beltran before a mandatory,and if that's acceptable , then purse bids for the rematch. I wouldn't automatically offer to defend in the USA.
And I'll add, I think Burns would win a rematch.

Just because it wasnt a wide decision win doesnt mean it wasnt a robbery though.When you have all 44 press reporters scoring the fight on behalf of Beltran that's a pretty good indication of who deserved the victory. I mean aside from the vast majority of fans thinking the same.

bripez wrote:

Final round wrote:I don't know about ruining boxing , it's tarnished our reputation around the world. I suppose the positives are the overall majority believe Beltran won, Matchroom believe it and have offered Beltran a immediate rematch when Ricky is better and the judges in question must feel a bit embarrassed to say the least.

We will see if the rematch actually happens.

Like all other controversial decisions, this will be chip paper tomorrow and forgotten about next week when we will all be talking about another different controversy.

johnswan1 wrote:Judges should be held accountable. They should have to sit down on front of a panel and explain how they scored a particular round. If they are deemed to have clearly made a mistake they should receive some sort of penalty which can lead to a suspension of removal from their position. This happens far too often and needs to be sorted out.