Comments Thread For: Ricky Burns Lucky To Sc**** Draw in Scotland

[Hougigo]

Assuming you're the author, one thing I take issue with is your assertion that the close rounds don't go to the champ and home fighter. It's not right that they do, but this is boxing and in practice they usually do. It's not a matter of lowering oneself, it's just the reality. Carl Froch said it this year on the Kessler fight and Malignaggi said it after the Broner fight. It's something they acknowledge as fighters, so as fans why can't we?

On Phil Edwards and the holding, how is it any different to Steve Smoger who is considered by many to be the best ref in the game? In Maidana v Alexander, he allowed them to clinch 119 times in 10 rounds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4If7vEUAnPU I wouldn't be too harsh on him either.

This fight reminded me of Bradley v Providnikov, it was close on rounds but it was clear who was landing the more powerful punches. However, boxing is scored on rounds and there enough of them close to justify the draw imo. You referenced fightscorecollector, he had the fight 114-113 meaning the knockdown was the difference and he watched it twice.

One other thing never touched on by the press is Beltran's association with Memo Heredia. If Juan Manuel Marquez went into his next fight with no drug testing there would be uproar owing to his association but Beltran just gets a pass with no questions asked.

You'd only see outrage if Burns lost.
Since Burns didn't lose, people wont complain as bad.
I still expect to see something since he broke his jaw, but that dude was so open to that left hook, one can't really single it out.
If there is a rematch, I can see them asking for strict drug testing and insinuations flying around.

[MDPopescu]

Assuming you're the author, one thing I take issue with is your assertion that the close rounds don't go to the champ and home fighter. It's not right that they do, but this is boxing and in practice they usually do. It's not a matter of lowering oneself, it's just the reality. Carl Froch said it this year on the Kessler fight and Malignaggi said it after the Broner fight. It's something they acknowledge as fighters, so as fans why can't we?

On Phil Edwards and the holding, how is it any different to Steve Smoger who is considered by many to be the best ref in the game? In Maidana v Alexander, he allowed them to clinch 119 times in 10 rounds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4If7vEUAnPU I wouldn't be too harsh on him either.

This fight reminded me of Bradley v Providnikov, it was close on rounds but it was clear who was landing the more powerful punches. However, boxing is scored on rounds and there enough of them close to justify the draw imo. You referenced fightscorecollector, he had the fight 114-113 meaning the knockdown was the difference and he watched it twice.

One other thing never touched on by the press is Beltran's association with Memo Heredia. If Juan Manuel Marquez went into his next fight with no drug testing there would be uproar owing to his association but Beltran just gets a pass with no questions asked.

These are sophistic arguments.
None of the cited fights looked like this one.
... And when it comes to "justifying" a draw decision one may find it funny... Please review the public reaction in the arena... Don't tell me that the public was "biased"...

[Hougigo]

Assuming you're the author, one thing I take issue with is your assertion that the close rounds don't go to the champ and home fighter. It's not right that they do, but this is boxing and in practice they usually do. It's not a matter of lowering oneself, it's just the reality. Carl Froch said it this year on the Kessler fight and Malignaggi said it after the Broner fight. It's something they acknowledge as fighters, so as fans why can't we?

On Phil Edwards and the holding, how is it any different to Steve Smoger who is considered by many to be the best ref in the game? In Maidana v Alexander, he allowed them to clinch 119 times in 10 rounds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4If7vEUAnPU I wouldn't be too harsh on him either.

This fight reminded me of Bradley v Providnikov, it was close on rounds but it was clear who was landing the more powerful punches. However, boxing is scored on rounds and there enough of them close to justify the draw imo. You referenced fightscorecollector, he had the fight 114-113 meaning the knockdown was the difference and he watched it twice.

One other thing never touched on by the press is Beltran's association with Memo Heredia. If Juan Manuel Marquez went into his next fight with no drug testing there would be uproar owing to his association but Beltran just gets a pass with no questions asked.

Burns had him in a lot of headlocks.... think I'll watch the fight again later to count em. Like he'd have him, turn around and walk around with him

[Neckodeemus]

These are sophistic arguments.
None of the cited fights looked like this one.
... And when it comes to "justifying" a draw decision one may find it funny... Please review the public reaction in the arena... Don't tell me that the public was "biased"...

The idea that close rounds automatically go the home fighter is nonsense, if it happens in practice, as I’m sure it does, then it isn’t down to an unwritten rule, it’s down to poor/lazy officiating. What is the basis of this idea? If you say it’s to reflect that the champion worked hard to get to where he is do we add Clause a) This only applies if the current belt-holder won the title from his predecessor, rather than being handed a vacant belt. If you go down that road then I can think of plenty of clauses. It’s just a blanket statement that gets brought out if a fights close or controversial, it basically amounts to: “I can’t be arsed/don’t know how to put(ting) an argument together”. An experienced, well trained judge should be able to find a winner to a round, if he or she doesn’t the drawn rounds can create a scenario where a fighter can win a fight despite only taking five rounds.

I wasn’t being harsh on Edward, that’s why I moved on to the judging itself — he didn’t warn Burns so it’s a moot point.

I like the fightscorecollector and chat to him on Twitter, but I disagree slightly with his card. I take my own card first and foremost over most, I know that sounds obnoxious, but I put a lot of thought into scoring. I feel that the judge I mentioned the most was at a disadvantage as he is at a higher level, but hasn’t had as much experience and was pitched into an away fight in front of a partisan crowd.

Fighters do get tested here in the U.K., so I just leave that in the hands of the testers and don’t want to go from ‘This is my take on the scores’ to ‘Hey, I’m yet another armchair scientist who doubles as an expert on PEDs’ type of a writer, or so-called writer!

Anyway, cheers for reading it and commenting.

[Weebler I]

These are sophistic arguments.
None of the cited fights looked like this one.
... And when it comes to "justifying" a draw decision one may find it funny... Please review the public reaction in the arena... Don't tell me that the public was "biased"...

What is it about the public reaction you want me to review?

Burns's card read out to cheers.
Beltran's card read out to boos.
The "draw" card was met with a mixture of cheers and whistles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wue1aIq1zE

I've heard crowds boo the home fighter getting a decision. Williams v Botha, or Malignaggi v Cano, but that wasn't the case here.

[Weebler I]

The idea that close rounds automatically go the home fighter is nonsense, if it happens in practice, as I’m sure it does, then it isn’t down to an unwritten rule, it’s down to poor/lazy officiating. What is the basis of this idea? If you say it’s to reflect that the champion worked hard to get to where he is do we add Clause a) This only applies if the current belt-holder won the title from his predecessor, rather than being handed a vacant belt. If you go down that road then I can think of plenty of clauses. It’s just a blanket statement that gets brought out if a fights close or controversial, it basically amounts to: “I can’t be arsed/don’t know how to put(ting) an argument together”. An experienced, well trained judge should be able to find a winner to a round, if he or she doesn’t the drawn rounds can create a scenario where a fighter can win a fight despite only taking five rounds.

Firstly, I agree that it is a nonsense and in an ideal world (or sport) it wouldn't happen. Nevertheless, I do think it is convention and part of boxing, perhaps evolving in line with the champion usually fighting at home with the crowd behind him influencing the judge's scoring.

My (rhetorical) question is basically that if the close rounds are most often going to the champion and/or home fighter in most other fights, is one then wrong to expect the pattern to continue in this one?

I wasn’t being harsh on Edward, that’s why I moved on to the judging itself — he didn’t warn Burns so it’s a moot point.

I like the fightscorecollector and chat to him on Twitter, but I disagree slightly with his card. I take my own card first and foremost over most, I know that sounds obnoxious, but I put a lot of thought into scoring. I feel that the judge I mentioned the most was at a disadvantage as he is at a higher level, but hasn’t had as much experience and was pitched into an away fight in front of a partisan crowd.

Fighters do get tested here in the U.K., so I just leave that in the hands of the testers and don’t want to go from ‘This is my take on the scores’ to ‘Hey, I’m yet another armchair scientist who doubles as an expert on PEDs’ type of a writer, or so-called writer!

Anyway, cheers for reading it and commenting.

No probs, it was more balanced than most of the articles I've read on the fight.

[MDPopescu]

What is it about the public reaction you want me to review?

Burns's card read out to cheers.
Beltran's card read out to boos.
The "draw" card was met with a mixture of cheers and whistles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wue1aIq1zE

... And what about the commentators (specially the one with the Scottish accent)?
After 30 seconds following the decision, the comment went like this: "...look at this crowd... very very quiet... this is very... significant..."

(I'll stop here -- there's no need to argue with a British fan...)

[Neckodeemus]

Firstly, I agree that it is a nonsense and in an ideal world (or sport) it wouldn't happen. Nevertheless, I do think it is convention and part of boxing, perhaps evolving in line with the champion usually fighting at home with the crowd behind him influencing the judge's scoring.

My (rhetorical) question is basically that if the close rounds are most often going to the champion and/or home fighter in most other fights, is one then wrong to expect the pattern to continue in this one?



No probs, it was more balanced than most of the articles I've read on the fight.

I get what you’re saying, mate. My take is that you go on a round by round, winner gets the 10, basis, but I know that some may just stick it 10-10 or go for the title-holder, in the case of close rounds, to keep on a par with the judges. It does happen, but there are times it goes the other way, Sturm Vs Geale for example. I tend to score the fight how I see it, how the judges in question are probably seeing it and how they’re historically scored under various bodies, the EBU for instance, to get a overall perspective. It works quite well, I was one out from getting all three cards correct in Manny-Marquez III, but you’re always going to get cards that you cannot fathom — that’s what happened on Sat so I tried to figure out how and why.

[ShoulderRoll]

fightscore gathered 44 different press scores for this fight.

Not a single one of them had Ricky Burns winning. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about who really deserved to win the bout.

[LAPete]

... And what about the commentators (specially the one with the Scottish accent)?
After 30 seconds following the decision, the comment went like this: "...look at this crowd... very very quiet... this is very... significant..."

(I'll stop here -- there's no need to argue with a British fan...)

and an ignorant British Fan no less.