BoxRec

I've been asking why goal posts were moved after 4 eliminators, whereupon Nansen & Ritani-Coe should've contested semi-final 1 & winner would then contest winner of semi-final 2 = Meehan vs Sprott in Final. To date no-one in the mix is prepared to answer, but did send me the link to Tournament Format, which had been edited since then http://www.supereight.co.nz/

The judging was dodgy as they come.

Does it really come as a great shock to people?

I enjoyed it. I disagreed with the Sprott-Rogan and Meehan-Sam decisions, but they were close fights and hardly rip-offs. As for the tournament format, I thought that while unconventional, it was made clear from the start.

oliverfennell wrote:I enjoyed it. I disagreed with the Sprott-Rogan and Meehan-Sam decisions, but they were close fights and hardly rip-offs. As for the tournament format, I thought that while unconventional, it was made clear from the start.

Your're wrong there my friend. From the very start, winner of bout one was to contest winner of bout two in first semi final.....Did that happen? The format has since been edited to make it look like it was all Prim & Proper = Absolute honesty

AntonS wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:I enjoyed it. I disagreed with the Sprott-Rogan and Meehan-Sam decisions, but they were close fights and hardly rip-offs. As for the tournament format, I thought that while unconventional, it was made clear from the start.

Your're wrong there my friend. From the very start, winner of bout one was to contest winner of bout two in first semi final.....Did that happen? The format has since been edited to make it look like it was all Prim & Proper = Absolute honesty

That was the assumption, of course, but it wasn't announced that this would happen. The first time the format was mentioned, it was that QF1 winner would meet QF4 winner.

Who gives a fornicate.

oliverfennell wrote:

AntonS wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:I enjoyed it. I disagreed with the Sprott-Rogan and Meehan-Sam decisions, but they were close fights and hardly rip-offs. As for the tournament format, I thought that while unconventional, it was made clear from the start.

Your're wrong there my friend. From the very start, winner of bout one was to contest winner of bout two in first semi final.....Did that happen? The format has since been edited to make it look like it was all Prim & Proper = Absolute honesty

That was the assumption, of course, but it wasn't announced that this would happen. The first time the format was mentioned, it was that QF1 winner would meet QF4 winner.

Not so. I prepared the card in Boxerc according to format on this site http://www.supereight.co.nz/ (which had been edited since then) so it's in correct order, which also reflects in individual's record, unlike Prizefighter, where finalists last fight was quarter final. If you look at the card, you'll notice Semi 2 took place before Semi 1 http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=689232 I purposely did it that way as a reminder, there was last minute change to initial format.

macaca wrote:Who gives a eff.

I do. Nansen or Ritani-Coe were denied the opportunity to challenge Sprott or Meehan in the Final
Other than ZERO, what was the purpose of so called official draw??

AntonS wrote:

macaca wrote:Who gives a eff.

I do. Nansen or Ritani-Coe were denied the opportunity to challenge Sprott or Meehan in the Final
Other than ZERO, what was the purpose of so called official draw??

But surely Nantsen was given a lucky break by this change, as it allowed him as the guy with the longest rest to face the guy with the shortest rest (Sprott) in the semis.

What was the purpose of the draw, when the format/rules changed after quarter finals?
I wonder what would've happened if Mehaan & Sprott were eliminated in quarter finals.....particularly Mehaan ? ;;-)