Blind Judges! Simpson v Mathews

Top Dog · Post by **Top Dog** » 11 Mar 2007, 08:14

How bad are these judges getting? Disgraceful that Simpson lost the decision to Derry. How the hell can one judge give it to the englishman when the guy had 3 rounds at 10-8 against him??

Had Simpson ahead by 2 rounds. They should kick these jokers out

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 11 Mar 2007, 08:17

He only had one 10- 8 when he scored the knockdown.

weetam · Post by **weetam** » 11 Mar 2007, 08:18

No three 10-8 rounds big man - points aff at the end of the fight but another joke result all the same. Same auld England - a'ways cheatin!

wee tam

Les Kendal · Post by **Les Kendal** » 11 Mar 2007, 08:25

I'm not sure about 3 10-8s. I think I gave Simpson one 10-8 for the first round, then another for one of the point deductions rounds which Simpson also won.. I gave the other point deduction round 9-9 because Matthews probably won it. Farcical scorecard were shown at the end though.

sweetscience · Post by **sweetscience** » 11 Mar 2007, 10:25

why do people assume its always a 10-8 round following a point deduction/knockdown

u can still win the round if your knocked down etc

JC · Post by JC » 11 Mar 2007, 10:41

Maybe someone more familiar with scoring can explain it, but one judge scored for Matthews 118.

Even if you score the knockdown and point deduction rounds 9-9, surely even if Mathews won all the other rounds 10-9 the most points he could get is 117?

Or am I going wrong somewhere?

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 11 Mar 2007, 13:43

Yeh that's right, I think. I just watched it again...

Although I believe using the 10-point must system a 9-9 round is only ever used when a point is deducted, not a knockdown and the knockdown can be negated. The deducted point only comes off after the judge has written his score in for that round.

So if fighter A wins the round 10-9 and A is deducted a point, the round becomes 9-9.

If fighter A wins the round 10-9 and fighter B is deducted a point, then A will win the round 10-8.

If A & B draw a round, the fighter deducted a point will lose 10-9.

So in the case of Matthews-Simpson, whether you think he won or lost those two rounds in which he was deducted a point for fouling (I think he lost round 6, making it 10-8 for Simpson and won round 9, making it 9-9) the most he could get for each round was 9 points, but probably should have only gotten 8 points for round 6?

Now that's not even taking into account the first round in which Matthews lost and was knocked down in, making it 10-8 for Simpson.

So the max score Matthews could have gotten was 116, unless you think he won the 1st round in which he was knocked down in and didn't lose any of the other rounds. (surely Simpson won round 3?)

Is that right?

How can they get away with this

:x

Exile · Post by **Exile** » 11 Mar 2007, 14:07

Has anyone connected with the fight made any comments regarding the ridiculous scoring?

My T Sharp · Post by **My T Sharp** » 11 Mar 2007, 14:45

lvlarc_uk wrote:Yeh that's right, I think. I just watched it again...

Although I believe using the 10-point must system a 9-9 round is only ever used when a point is deducted, not a knockdown and the knockdown can be negated. The deducted point only comes off after the judge has written his score in for that round.

So if fighter A wins the round 10-9 and A is deducted a point, the round becomes 9-9.

If fighter A wins the round 10-9 and fighter B is deducted a point, then A will win the round 10-8.

If A & B draw a round, the fighter deducted a point will lose 10-9.

So in the case of Matthews-Simpson, whether you think he won or lost those two rounds in which he was deducted a point for fouling (I think he lost round 6, making it 10-8 for Simpson and won round 9, making it 9-9) the most he could get for each round was 9 points, but probably should have only gotten 8 points for round 6?

Now that's not even taking into account the first round in which Matthews lost and was knocked down in, making it 10-8 for Simpson.

So the max score Matthews could have gotten was 116, unless you think he won the 1st round in which he was knocked down in and didn't lose any of the other rounds. (surely Simpson won round 3?)

Is that right?

How can they get away with this
:x

This is confusing...I didn't know that you can have a 9-9 score, so I now have Matthews winning by a point. I had 2 even rounds, so the 3rd judge was probably about right. I've just had a look at the WBU site and they have some interesting rules:

2. Three judges shall score the contest and determine the winner by the use of the ten (10) points must system. In this system the winner of the round receives ten (10) points and the opponent an appropriately lower number. Under no circumstances will the scoring be less than ten (10) to 8 on the judges’ scorecards. When the round is even each boxer receives ten (10) points. The judges’ views on the scoring of each boxer are to be written on the back of the scorecards.
3. The scorecards will be picked up after the end of each round and tallied by the WBU commissioner. The three ringside WBU judges only score the fight according to what they see. Any points to be taken away will be made by the WBU referee, who will inform the ringside WBU Fight Commissioner who will mark the master score sheet accordingly. The referee will decide on a knockdown if it deserves no points away, one point away or two points away. A knockdown is not an automatic point away. Any points away will be deducted from the individual rounds’ totals and not tallied up and deducted from the overall scores at the end of the contest.

So what 'could' have happened under point 3 is that Vann counted Matthews in round 1 but considered that Matthews should not lose any points, maybe because he bossed the round and part of going down was getting his legs tangled with Simpson. That seems to be the only way that he could have got 118?

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 11 Mar 2007, 14:54

Some Scots have double standards, the judges score was too wide but Derry still won. Simpson was lucky to get his British belt, Morris's cut wasn't as bad as Simpsons and he wasn't given extra rounds like John had.

Theirs been dirtier fights like Williams/Skelton 1.

glittermonkey · Post by **glittermonkey** » 11 Mar 2007, 15:03

Max Molyneux wrote:Some Scots have double standards, the judges score was too wide but Derry still won. Simpson was lucky to get his British belt, Morris's cut wasn't as bad as Simpsons and he wasn't given extra rounds like John had.

Theirs been dirtier fights like Williams/Skelton 1.

Maybe Simpson was lucky to win the title, but he in turn was jobbed against Williams. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if he was lucky to win it he was also unlucky not to win it earlier in his career.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 11 Mar 2007, 15:14

glittermonkey wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:Some Scots have double standards, the judges score was too wide but Derry still won. Simpson was lucky to get his British belt, Morris's cut wasn't as bad as Simpsons and he wasn't given extra rounds like John had.

Theirs been dirtier fights like Williams/Skelton 1.
Maybe Simpson was lucky to win the title, but he in turn was jobbed against Williams. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if he was lucky to win it he was also unlucky not to win it earlier in his career.

Aye too wrongs don't make a right but the Scots never complained about Morris not having a chance and his cut wasn't as worse as Simpsons yet Morris gets his cut stopped on the 1st doctors check!

All I read from Scottish fans Is Simpson deserved the Morris win because of being Jobbed by Dazzo. Some double standards there.

I maybe a Scouser and people could use that to argue at my opinion but regardless of that I'd still think Derry won even If I wasn't a scouser.

They only complain when there own have problems but Simpson clearly lost regardless of the dirty fighting and Knockdown.

I thought the judges score was too wide and they must of not listened to Vanns point deductions but they still chose the right winner.

I want to check the 12th round though when Simpson fell onto the ropes, not sure If he touched the canvas.

Grilling Machine · Post by **Grilling Machine** » 11 Mar 2007, 15:18

J-C wrote:Maybe someone more familiar with scoring can explain it, but one judge scored for Matthews 118.

118 means Matthews won every round except the first, which had to be 10-8.
So that judge had Simpson losing - and once drawing - every round past the opener.

Where points were deducted, the rounds would've been 10-10. I prefer 9-9 myself, but never mind.

Matthews wins all except first = 118.
Simpson loses all except first = 109, plus 2 points from deductions and one drawn round = 112.

It reminded me of the Reid vs. Calzaghe fight, in that you'd be inclined to favour the boxer of personal choice, ahead of what actually happened in the ring. From a fan's perspective that's okay, but judges aren't paid to score opinion.

Reid landed more shots, a couple of them very good, but Calzaghe never looked in serious trouble and appeared by far the more relaxed, capable fighter. On scoring it was Robin's win, but Joe wasn't really 'beaten'. In fact, had fireworks occurred, I think most would've favoured Calzaghe in a proper bust up.

There is a difference between seeing a man outpointed and watching him being overcome. The latter is often necessary in swinging the vote. The purist in me says a fight should be scored on shots landed, but then I think about the occasional mockery in the amateurs, where ten connected light blows are worth more than two hurtful digs to the body. If the bouts were longer, the stinging punches would tell.

Anyway, I had Matthews/Simpson a draw. Much as I dislike Matthews, he wasn't ever in trouble after the knock down, and avoided the vast majority of the incoming looping rights. Where they rarely landed, I gave the round to Simpson on merit alone, since nothing much came in reply.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 11 Mar 2007, 15:26

I had It 115-111 for Derry.

So thats 9 rounds to 3 Including the deductions and knockdown.

states · Post by **states** » 11 Mar 2007, 15:31

Grilling Machine wrote:
J-C wrote:Maybe someone more familiar with scoring can explain it, but one judge scored for Matthews 118.
118 means Matthews won every round except the first, which had to be 10-8.
So that judge had Simpson losing - and once drawing - every round past the opener.

Where points were deducted, the rounds would've been 10-10. I prefer 9-9 myself, but never mind.

It is 9-9. WBU rules, such as they are, state that any points deducted are taken from the round score, so 10-9 becomes 9-9.

So by that reckoning, to arrive at a 118-112 card, the judge gave Matthews 8 rounds and scored the other 4 even.

JC · Post by JC » 11 Mar 2007, 15:36

Grilling Machine wrote:
J-C wrote:Maybe someone more familiar with scoring can explain it, but one judge scored for Matthews 118.
118 means Matthews won every round except the first, which had to be 10-8.
So that judge had Simpson losing - and once drawing - every round past the opener.

Where points were deducted, the rounds would've been 10-10. I prefer 9-9 myself, but never mind.

Matthews wins all except first = 118.
Simpson loses all except first = 109, plus 2 points from deductions and one drawn round = 112.

Thanks mate that makes sense.

I didn't have a problem with Matthews as the winner but two of the score cards seem to suggest unless Simpson KO'd matthews there was no point in him turning up.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 11 Mar 2007, 15:40

Does a judge have to take a point off?
Or can they ignore the Ref, as they may not agree with him.

MTG · Post by **MTG** » 11 Mar 2007, 16:57

robbery!!!

the scoring i think may put simpson into retirment

Top Dog · Post by **Top Dog** » 11 Mar 2007, 17:06

Max Molyneux wrote:He only had one 10- 8 when he scored the knockdown.

Of course it was 3 10-8 rounds, the knock down, and the two rounds were Derry was docked a point, he lost the rounds in my book, so therefore 10-8

No way Derry won the fight

cheating bastards simple as that.

Scrap · Post by **Scrap** » 11 Mar 2007, 17:10

What alarmed me about the fight, those 2 are sopposed to be the 2 best feathers in the country .

boxbet · Post by **boxbet** » 11 Mar 2007, 17:20

He won by a wisker probably, but in reality he puts bums on seats. And thats what this business is all about. There wasnt much boxing in this fight. If these r the best in Britain I will eat my arse and start boxing now to beat thse bums.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 11 Mar 2007, 17:29

Top Dog wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:He only had one 10- 8 when he scored the knockdown.
Of course it was 3 10-8 rounds, the knock down, and the two rounds were Derry was docked a point, he lost the rounds in my book, so therefore 10-8 No way Derry won the fight cheating bastards simple as that.

It was 9-9 rounds when he was deducted points.

Clear win without the dirtiness, Simpson's head was jolted back dropped onto the ropes and struggled to get past those long arms.

What do you think of the Ref In Simpson/Morris 2 then?

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 11 Mar 2007, 17:30

Scrap wrote:What alarmed me about the fight, those 2 are sopposed to be the 2 best feathers in the country .

Did you see what ITV showed of Matthews Vs Foster last October?

Scrap · Post by **Scrap** » 11 Mar 2007, 18:05

Yes I did, enjoyed it

Grilling Machine · Post by **Grilling Machine** » 11 Mar 2007, 18:19

Max: I believe your 9-9 theory to be the correct method, but you can't arrive at 118 after 2 deductions plus the knock down.

By the way, does every round with one knock down have to be 10-8? What I mean is, supposing the guy who's knocked down gets up to batter the opponent for the remainder, would that then be 10-9? I haven't heard an overview of the rules for years, but I think that's right actually...

If so, Matthews might've been given all twelve rounds, docked the two points, and been forced to accept 10-9 against for round one, despite winning on that judge's card. Paris wasn't it?
The only conclusion to O'Connell's score is that he gave two extra points to Simpson, rather than taking them from Matthews; which is odd. Or he ignored the touch down and gave Matthews the first.

118-112... In favour of the winner, and STILL the champion: Sven Ottke!