Elcock v Mcdermott..

[bigped]

Am i right in saying this is on tonight>? and if so whose gonna win>??

[WildWaylon]

Double KO!!! dont know even fight I think.

[chesh]

Sky Sports 2, 10 pm. I'm picking McDermott by late stoppage.

[Asterix]

Woohoo, here we go!

[Asterix]

Sold out the Civic Hall in Wolverhampton. 1700 tickets.

[nufc16]

gave that first round to elcock. sky seem to be heavily favouring mcdermott.

[nufc16]

fight over! mcdermott badly cut and the ref calls it off in the 2nd round. big shame that.

[Asterix]

fight over! mcdermott badly cut and the ref calls it off in the 2nd round. big shame that.

Yeah, poor guy. :(

[nufc16]

think the sky pundits were being a bit harsh on the ref/doctor. cut happened pretty early in the round, im sure if it had happened near the end he'd of given the corner a chance to work with it, but it was very deep.

[Max Molyneux]

gave that first round to elcock. sky seem to be heavily favouring mcdermott.

The Sky commentators suck, Elcock was landing more with the agression going forward, I gave the 1st to Wayne too.

[nufc16]

couldnt believe mcdermott went in a betting favourite anyway. glad i stuck a tenner on elcock, though its a shame to have a nights boxing ended like that.

[tonyevs]

It was a bad cut - and a sensible stoppage by the Dr.
The cut was so deep and so swollen they would have never been able to deal with that. How would they have used the endswell to push that massive swelling away without worsening that cut?

As for them pointing out the cut wasn`t bleeding when they were in the dressing room after .. well that was because Elcock wasn`t there putting some leather(or his head) onto it anymore..

To have let the fight continue was probably only going to postpone the inevitable .. and probably put McDermott out for longer because of the further damage to the cut.

[Coco]

Bad cuts ruin careers
Was it a punch or a clash of heafs?

[Max Molyneux]

Clash of heads.

McDermott maybe a slow starter but Wayne just went out with constant agression and looked more effective.

[Coco]

Would have been a no contest in most countries then!

[Maelstrom]

I actually thought Elcock was being handled pretty well by McDermott...

[Deserter]

I think the reality is that no-one should read too much into a round and a bit - Elcock started postively with combos and a few nice right hands over the top, while McDermott seemed relaxed and was timing the uppercuts nicely. Impossible to make a convincing call either way so rematch is essential.

[dondada]

McDermott and his corner were understandably very upset but it looked a bad and deep cut - below the eye or not. Maybe I'm a bit squeamish but that would only have got worse and quickly too. It's OK saying Jimmy Tibbs wasn't given a chance to work on it but there was more than two minutes left in the round within which Elcock could have made his cheek an optional extra.

[Twinkle Toes]

The gash under the eye was something Silvia Saint would be proud of - I don't see what the corner could have done to prevent that from opening up more.

He was cut above the eye too wasn't he, I think it was the right call to pull him out.

[Chambers2]

Isn't it about time the BBBC updated it's rules to be in line with the rest of the world, so this fight would have been scored a technical draw. It's ridiculous that a fighter can win a fight on an accidental clash of heads. I remember Herbie Hide losing to when Mindaugas Kulikauskas when they clashed heads and HH got cut. The law is an Ass in this instance!!

I can feel an e-mail to my mate Simon Block coming on ([email protected]) asking him to explain the logic behind this illogical rule? :)

[Chambers2]

Good Morning Simon

I'm a avid British Boxing fan and have been for quite a few years. I'd been really looking forward to the Elcock Vs McDermott fight that happened in Wolverhampton on Friday 20th June, so I was very disappointed in the way the fight ended, but to coin a phrase "Hey that's Boxing". The Sky commentators and understandably McDermott and his team thought the stoppage by the doctor was harsh, but I'm not so sure considering the size of the cut, the swelling and that it was only the second round.

What I can't understand though is why Elcock is declared the winner of the fight in this instance, why is Elcock being rewarded for an accidental clash of heads? Surely the logical rule is the rule that is used elsewhere around the world, where the fight would have been scored a technical draw as the stoppage caused by the clash of heads happened within the first 4 rounds, if it happened after the 4th round then it would have gone to the scorecards.

Could you please explain to me the logic of McDermott being debited with a loss and Elcock being credited with a win, due to this accidental clash of heads? I recall this same absurd rule coming into effect in March 2004 when Herbie Hide clashed heads with Mindaugas Kulikauskas and Herbie was given a L on his record in a fight he was extremely unlikely to lose.
Are there any plans to update this rule to bring us in line with the rest of the world, as this seems like an obvious error in the BBBC rules.
Thanks for your time

[Autobarn]

I think the ref thought it was a punch that caused the cut.

[Dioufy]

I thought they should've let the corner have a crack at it and then had a look a it. It was under the eye, thus not affecting his eye sight and putting himself in danger from not seeing punches coming. He had a little knick at the corner of his eye which wasn't a problem, but the swelling was probably the major factor here. I still think they should've give the corner a chance, and at the very least, that fight should've been a TD - it's so harsh on McDermott to get his first loss in that way.

[Lenny]

I think the ref thought it was a punch that caused the cut.

But what difference would that have made?

[Dioufy]

If a fight is stopped by a cut caused by a punch then the person who threw the punch deserves the win.