Irish Man at Centre of Muay thai Judging scandal

Eddy L

Irish man at the centre of judging scandal at a big world title eliminator fight in the Uk last week,seems as though the score cards have being tamperd with like the kahn fight.Looks like orders from thailand again mr fox and the WMC crew.

http://message.axkickboxing.com/index.phtml?action=dispthread&topic=36640&topicgroup=axmain&junk=6223

lawrencesummers

since when were the scorecards in the khan fight tampered with?

Eddy L

lawrencesummers wrote: »

since when were the scorecards in the khan fight tampered with?

Well what ever they were tamperd or changed,dodgy shamefull stuff.

lawrencesummers

One round was changed, and not the whole card, and that round was looks like a correction. Its worth noting that the other two judges gave that round the same way. Your listening to to much british commentary i reckon, that said boxing is turning into a bigger farce everyday and khan should not have left the fight go to the judges.

Eddy L

lawrencesummers wrote: »

One round was changed, and not the whole card, and that round was looks like a correction. Its worth noting that the other two judges gave that round the same way. Your listening to to much british commentary i reckon, that said boxing is turning into a bigger farce everyday and khan should not have left the fight go to the judges.

Yes well he was given back the belts end off.

Back on topic to the disgraceful decision last saturday night in London.Feel sorry for wakeling he hasnt fought much the past 3-4 years i hope he is back in the ring soon as awesome fighter.

Dave Joyce

My my Eddie, you're a bitter LITTLE man (boy???)

Irish man at the centre of judging scandal at a big world title eliminator fight in the Uk last week,seems as though the score cards have being tamperd with like the kahn fight.Looks like orders from thailand again mr fox and the WMC crew.

So you were present and seen the fight......or is it that you were one of the people that love to read gossip.....presuming you CAN read

Looks like orders from thailand again mr fox and the WMC crew.

Hmmm you know I'd love to know WHO is giving you your orders

Then again, with your VAST ring and judging experience you're just the person to have an "expert" opinion

Eddy L

Haha typical Joyce response.

As the title says Irish man at centre of judging scandal.it is what it is Dave im just posting the discussion up on boards.

Were you present at the fight?.i have spoke to people who where via facebook and they swear it was day light robbery.

Haha you question my opinion on judging i have seen u in action when you shafted donkey and then there was the bracken v joyce fight from the fight four man,when you gave the fight to Karl and fighters where left standing in the ring while Craig over turned yours and another judges score cards to the right descion.

Haha yes well we all now were youre orders are coming from.

yomchi

Lads stick to the discussion and leave out personal abuse. Any further mud slinging will result in infractions/bans.

Deal with the result of the fight with mature heads and discuss the detail without personalising it.

Khannie

OK lads....Next bit of mud slinging is going to get a slap upside the head in the form of an infraction or ban, smiley face or not. Keep it civil and we might have an interesting discussion. Edit: great minds Yomchi.

My own take on that whole ax judging mess:
It put me right off judging tbh.
Why is nobody focused on the punter who scored against Wakeling?
Craig felt the fight was too close to call = it's a draw. End of.
I always felt that for Thai the score card is more a guide for the judge, not something to be ruled by. Now maybe I'm going to get eaten alive for that, but at the end of a fight if you feel like nobody stood out, well then a draw seems fair. I'm not a big fan of that 10/10 business in the first round, but it's the "done thing" and I feel it skews the numbers on the card a bit.

Suggesting that Craig is taking orders from on high = conspiracy theory nonsense IMO. Now I'm not saying that judges can't be intentionally or unintentionally biased. That's why the goal is always to have a decent split among them but there's just no evidence for allegations like that. It weakens your arguments Eddy.

Peetrik

Khannie wrote: »

Why is nobody focused on the punter who scored against Wakeling?

I was wondering that myself, it barely blipped a mention, I suppose this highlights that even in England where you have the likes of Tony Myres etc the pratice of judging is still a very grey area.

The freakout seems to be over the actual numbers on the scorecard giving Wakeling the win, despite Craig having given his final decision as a draw. From what I understand, Thai is one of the few sports where the scorecard can be altered retroactively due it being scored on effect, for example leg kicks in an earlier round might not show effect straight away, so the judge can go back and change his score later in the fight if it becomes apparent that earlier kicks did do some damage/have an effect.

Also, I remember being told before that it is possible for a fighter to lose 4 rounds and then win the last so convincingly that he wins the fight despite being out pointed the previous 4 rounds.

All this seems to be at odds with the reaction by some to the Levin - Wakeling fight who clearly feel that the decision is down to the scorecard alone.

I'd be very interested to see the fight eitherway

Dave Joyce

Lads stick to the discussion and leave out personal abuse.

Are you serious, this tool, who I can gladly normally just totally ignore, puts up a post as a chance to slate Craig which is not the first time or is it the first time that I have complained about him doing it either but he seems to get a PRETTY free ride on this forum. He then "attempts" to goad me but thankfully I'm not bothered by someone who's testicles have yet to drop....that is, if he has any in the first place

I wasn't there so I'm not prepared to comment on the fight itself but there are a lot of things you see ringside that MAY not be seen further away from the ring OR on a tape of the fight later. Finally judging is subjective and its what you regard as YOUR view of the result of the fight which should not be influenced by bias towards one or other of the fighters or the reaction of the crowd to what is actually going on in the ring as opposed to what one set of supporters want to see.

Khannie

Dave, you're just as guilty as he is calling him a little man, more or less accusing him of being illiterate and now you've ignored two mod warnings to leave out the mud slinging by calling him a tool. Infracted.

gregmarah

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Are you serious, this tool, who I can gladly normally just totally ignore, puts up a post as a chance to slate Craig which is not the first time or is it the first time that I have complained about him doing it either but he seems to get a PRETTY free ride on this forum. He then "attempts" to goad me but thankfully I'm not bothered by someone who's testicles have yet to drop....that is, if he has any in the first place

I wasn't there so I'm not prepared to comment on the fight itself but there are a lot of things you see ringside that MAY not be seen further away from the ring OR on a tape of the fight later. Finally judging is subjective and its what you regard as YOUR view of the result of the fight which should not be influenced by bias towards one or other of the fighters or the reaction of the crowd to what is actually going on in the ring as opposed to what one set of supporters want to see.

hahaah your some man Davey lol , brilliant

Doug Cartel

gregmarah wrote: »

hahaah your some man Davey lol , brilliant

This gets an infraction.

gregmarah

excuse my ignorance but whats that mean ?

Doug Cartel

It means you're close to getting a ban. Two other mods already said not to sling mud, so unless you've got something of substance to add to the thread I would suggest not posting. If you want discuss the infraction further you should do so via PM.

gregmarah

ill be a good boy from now on

Eddy L

Well its all a shambles..the sweedish judge was well of the mark and why they needed to bring him in from Sweden is baffling,there are top officials in the UK.

Its funny to hear liam robingson say that when he was judging at an amateur tournament in Greece,Ryan rudkin told him to cheat and give descion to UK fighters he refused to and got in trouble.

The refeeree from sat night Jesse Saunders gave his story of collecting score cards.he was booked in to ref this saturday and has being told he isn't needed.

This what the ukmf are like,so it is no wonder there so many conspiracys about this fight.there not to be trusted.

CMT

Hopefully the mods on Boards will not let the forum degenerate into what the AX forum in England has. Every thread on AX seems to be over run by trolls that fling insults and abuse at anybody they do not like or have different views to. How they get away with such defamatory and derogatory comments is unbelievable and a poor reflection on them and the moderators. They call themselves sports people but have done nothing but bring their sport into the gutter.

Khannie

Eddy L wrote: »

Its funny to hear liam robingson say that when he was judging at an amateur tournament in Greece,Ryan rudkin told him to cheat and give descion to UK fighters he refused to and got in trouble.

Where did you hear that?

Khannie

CMT wrote: »

Hopefully the mods on Boards will not let the forum degenerate into what the AX forum in England has.

Never liked AX myself. It's like a mad house over there. Some of the stuff that was said about Craig was atrocious IMO. Really put me off judging.

gregmarah

Khannie wrote: »

Never liked AX myself. It's like a mad house over there. Some of the stuff that was said about Craig was atrocious IMO. Really put me off judging.

i whole heartily agree with you Khannie ,what he called craig and other people was disgusting and the stuff they get away with over there on the forum is mental , i just got a warning for laughing at another posters comments , its only right i suppose :rolleyes:

Eddy L

Khannie wrote: »

Where did you hear that?

This is well known and if you read the thread about 1/4 the way down liamR says it again.

Khannie

Eddy L wrote: »

This is well known and if you read the thread about 1/4 the way down liamR says it again.

Fair enough. I'll have a look again.

To be honest I stopped reading that thread after someone went full retard on Craig. I don't always agree with what he does (in fact I regularly disagree) but some of the stuff being spouted on that thread just made me think "what's the point in reading this? It's just mob justice".

So here's what I'd like to know: Is the judge bound by the scorecard or not? Let's say the scorecard says 50/49 but the judge thinks it was really too close to call. Maybe there were two 10*'s for the guy with 49. Is it OK (by the letter of the law) for the judge to call it a draw then?

Peetrik

+1 on Khannies question. I'd be very interested to know that myself

Dave Joyce

So here's what I'd like to know: Is the judge bound by the scorecard or not? Let's say the scorecard says 50/49 but the judge thinks it was really too close to call. Maybe there were two 10*'s for the guy with 49. Is it OK (by the letter of the law) for the judge to call it a draw then?

What most people seem to forget is that judging is SUBJECTIVE and I would really like to feel we have moved on from the days when people with agendas/bias judged!! Fights are judged on what the officials think the result is IN THEIR EYES. I know I have strongly disagreed with decisions (from lads I regard as friends) against some of my fighters and have spoke with them privately about it and still disagreed with them BUT I know on a couple of those very occasions in the cold light of day when I seen the tape of the fight I might still not have agreed but might see it was not as clear cut as I originally thought. I know there have been times when I felt my fighter got the decision when the result should have went the other way.

Finally, to actually answer the question, YES you are NOT bound by your scorecard and you CAN actually score a fight a draw even if the total tallies show otherwise eg I remember a fight where I would have had a fighter ahead on points but really needing to win the last round convincingly to secure the win (after a poor start) but all he did in the last round was coast while the other fighter worked hard. I didn't feel the guy had done enough to deserve the decision and scored the fight a draw

Khannie

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Finally, to actually answer the question, YES you are NOT bound by your scorecard and you CAN actually score a fight a draw even if the total tallies show otherwise eg I remember a fight where I would have had a fighter ahead on points but really needing to win the last round convincingly to secure the win (after a poor start) but all he did in the last round was coast while the other fighter worked hard. I didn't feel the guy had done enough to deserve the decision and scored the fight a draw

Perfect. That's the way I understood it alright. In that case this whole business over on ax is much ado about nothing. Craig was the head judge. The other score cards are split. He feels the fighter didn't do enough. He calls it a draw. It's a draw. End of.

If anything the focus from the Wakeling crowd should be on the judge who scored it the other way.

Anyone know is the video up on youtube yet? This will be the most watched fight in ages.

gregmarah

Craig wasn't the head judge as far as i know Khannie , the way Dave explained it there is exactly how Craig explained it to me the day he came home from that fight. To be honest I'm looking forward to the next Judging course thats organized , i find the whole thing fascinating. But its situations like that fight would turn ones head against ever judging and the back lash he got off people that clearly doesn't understand the concept of judging.

BridgestoneThai

OK Khannie and Pat thats the last time im bringing you to a Tony Myers seminar if you cant be good children and listen. In answer to what Craig did the answer is yes but he did make a mess of the scores which he admitted in his statement. Its clear as mud as usual when it comes to Thai scoring as we so used to the Western boxing criteria.

The round scores are a guide and not the be all and end all of a decision but they should be reflective of such. Will try to explain as clear as I can as I understand it having done several course under Tony Myers over the past 12 years or so and you will see that even the most experienced of coaches in the UK still dont have a finite grasp on the ruling system which is not just set out by the WMC but is the rules as per the Sporting Authority of Thailand. I have stopped reading the ax thing as its gone way off kilter and shows just how hard it is even for experienced judges to understand the Thai scoring system.

A thai fight is best described in comparison to a horse race, a horse can lead from the start for most of the race but if a another horse overtakes in the last few furlongs it can win the race even if he was only winning in the latter and more minor part of the race he still passed the finishing lines first so therefore is the winner of the race and this is how a Thai fight is judged.

This is why when judging a non title fight you usually mark the first two or three rounds 10-10 with an * if someone had just edged the round so if the opposing fighter comes stong in the end and wins the last two rounds 10-9 then you do not have to go back and doctor your scores to equate with your decision. as he woud win 50-48 or 49-48 depending if it was 3 rounds at 10-10 or 2 rounds at 10-10 respectfully. The * would have no bearing unless it was a close enough fight and they could sway to the early leader or level it up if it was only the last round that the opponant won but not by a big enough margin.

You may say then I contradict myself in the horse race scenario but no , if one horse was leading most of the race and another horse had a late spurt he may catch up on the leading horse having the better finish to the race but at the finish line they come through both at the same time even with a stronger finish by one then it is a draw.

To explain the last sentance if I had scorred the first 4 rounds as 10-10 and Blue had two rounds with *'s and gave Red the last round 10-9 which on the score card then the scores would show 50-49 to Red but if I felt on reflection that Reds final round was a little too late and not big enough to warrant a win looking back on the guide as in the rounds with *'s to Blue then I have the right to adjust the last round to a 10-10 so as to register the fight a draw then scored 50-50 which as my subjective view which is what all judges decide upon.

In relation to Craigs decision he was within his rights to do this and call a draw to the fight as he saw fit as you can see if you read his explaination on ax but where he made his mistake was having initially give the fight 50-48 to Wakeling he then went to change the third round to 10-9 in stead of 10*-10 but that still gave Wakling a win 49-48 where as he should also have changed one the the last two rounds from 10-9 to 10-10 which would then have reflected his decision as 49-49 DRAW. So i think thats where the mistake came from. I thick it was just a calculative mistake and was no conspiricy. I think there was problems there between people it sounds like before this result.

As a conspiricy I dont see the reason for it as was a bull**** title which is the MAD WMC titles where there are a few holders at each weight they just made up for show titles. So I dont see any advantage or disadvantage in winning or losing or drawing this fight for Levin as was not an important title. The reason why they had WMC judges and not just UKMF judges as up to 5 days before it was to be for the WMC World title before the Russian camp did not want to fight for the WMC title. I think the WMC title was vacant anyway so conspiricy theory I cant get. I think some of the UK gym do not see eye to eye with head of the UKMF Ryan Rudkin. I was over with a fighter on one of his shows recently and was treated well with no complaints. Have not seen fight so have no opinion as to right decision just trying to explain it somewhat. Hope this helps.

I do understand a coaches emotions if he feels hard done by a decision as I have let off at some judges in the heat of the moment after some of my guys or girls getting bad decisions but it just emotions and nothing personal as a lot of IMC judges would have got a broadside from me sometimes but I know it wont change things but I think its just letting off steam but I think its over the top the way its kicked off and still going on ax. Hope it dont damage UK Muay Thai too much.

p.s. In a National, International or World REAL title WMC or IMC as such you do mark each round so you have to mark it as you see it each round but in so doing have to be conservitive in your scoring so as you still stick to the essence of the rules. A MAD (Muay Thai Against Drugs) WMC title is not what I would call a real title but still prestigious enough if you get to fight for it you must be a very highly rated fighter. See clear as mud :P

Whether I agree or disagree with the Rule set its the one they use in Thailand so if I want to fight Pure Muay Thai they are the rules, if not I should go join a Tennis club or something but that would not be pretty.
Above is my understanding of the rules IMHO.

EDDY L give it a rest, I know who you are if you dont want to be part of the IMC then just ignore it and do your own thing. I might not agree with all the rules and structures within the IMC as Craig and Sean know and are usually deafened by my outburst at meetings but thats called democracy. But the alternative of not being part of a national orginisation is a non organised group of clubs I think its the IMC is the better option. Mayby not hiding behind a sudoname might gain your views more respect.
Just a thought.:rolleyes:

gregmarah

A post like that Paul warrants a display on AX to let a lot of begrudgers understand the judging process , that made it perfectly clear to me. And listen up in future Pat & Khannie

Khannie

Haha. I had it right....thought I was gonna get eaten for it though....

Khannie wrote: »

I always felt that for Thai the score card is more a guide for the judge, not something to be ruled by.

BridgestoneThai

ha, no thanks not getting involved on ax, not my busines just trying to shed some light on how that decision may have come about for poster on this forum so people can get a balance view of comments.

seamus cogan

Scoring aside its clear the UKMF have handled this one very badly, in their opening statement they claim that Craig says his card was tampered with, which caused mayhem, Craig in his own statement says he never made this claim, so who put words in his mouth and why?
From an Irish point of view the IMC adopt the same practices as the UKMF, essentially dealing solely with WMC, thus limiting opportunities for their fighters, the worst thing is the IMC policy forbids any interaction with clubs who declined to join(why?), thus splitting Muay Thai in Ireland in two and imo setting the sport back years in this country.

Langka

BridgestoneThai wrote: »

OK Khannie and Pat thats the last time im bringing you to a Tony Myers seminar if you cant be good children and listen. In answer to what Craig did the answer is yes but he did make a mess of the scores which he admitted in his statement. Its clear as mud as usual when it comes to Thai scoring as we so used to the Western boxing criteria.

The round scores are a guide and not the be all and end all of a decision but they should be reflective of such. Will try to explain as clear as I can as I understand it having done several course under Tony Myers over the past 12 years or so and you will see that even the most experienced of coaches in the UK still dont have a finite grasp on the ruling system which is not just set out by the WMC but is the rules as per the Sporting Authority of Thailand. I have stopped reading the ax thing as its gone way off kilter and shows just how hard it is even for experienced judges to understand the Thai scoring system.

A thai fight is best described in comparison to a horse race, a horse can lead from the start for most of the race but if a another horse overtakes in the last few furlongs it can win the race even if he was only winning in the latter and more minor part of the race he still passed the finishing lines first so therefore is the winner of the race and this is how a Thai fight is judged.

This is why when judging a non title fight you usually mark the first two or three rounds 10-10 with an * if someone had just edged the round so if the opposing fighter comes stong in the end and wins the last two rounds 10-9 then you do not have to go back and doctor your scores to equate with your decision. as he woud win 50-48 or 49-48 depending if it was 3 rounds at 10-10 or 2 rounds at 10-10 respectfully. The * would have no bearing unless it was a close enough fight and they could sway to the early leader or level it up if it was only the last round that the opponant won but not by a big enough margin.

You may say then I contradict myself in the horse race scenario but no , if one horse was leading most of the race and another horse had a late spurt he may catch up on the leading horse having the better finish to the race but at the finish line they come through both at the same time even with a stronger finish by one then it is a draw.

To explain the last sentance if I had scorred the first 4 rounds as 10-10 and Blue had two rounds with *'s and gave Red the last round 10-9 which on the score card then the scores would show 50-49 to Red but if I felt on reflection that Reds final round was a little too late and not big enough to warrant a win looking back on the guide as in the rounds with *'s to Blue then I have the right to adjust the last round to a 10-10 so as to register the fight a draw then scored 50-50 which as my subjective view which is what all judges decide upon.

In relation to Craigs decision he was within his rights to do this and call a draw to the fight as he saw fit as you can see if you read his explaination on ax but where he made his mistake was having initially give the fight 50-48 to Wakeling he then went to change the third round to 10-9 in stead of 10*-10 but that still gave Wakling a win 49-48 where as he should also have changed one the the last two rounds from 10-9 to 10-10 which would then have reflected his decision as 49-49 DRAW. So i think thats where the mistake came from. I thick it was just a calculative mistake and was no conspiricy. I think there was problems there between people it sounds like before this result.

As a conspiricy I dont see the reason for it as was a bull**** title which is the MAD WMC titles where there are a few holders at each weight they just made up for show titles. So I dont see any advantage or disadvantage in winning or losing or drawing this fight for Levin as was not an important title. The reason why they had WMC judges and not just UKMF judges as up to 5 days before it was to be for the WMC World title before the Russian camp did not want to fight for the WMC title. I think the WMC title was vacant anyway so conspiricy theory I cant get. I think some of the UK gym do not see eye to eye with head of the UKMF Ryan Rudkin. I was over with a fighter on one of his shows recently and was treated well with no complaints. Have not seen fight so have no opinion as to right decision just trying to explain it somewhat. Hope this helps.

I do understand a coaches emotions if he feels hard done by a decision as I have let off at some judges in the heat of the moment after some of my guys or girls getting bad decisions but it just emotions and nothing personal as a lot of IMC judges would have got a broadside from me sometimes but I know it wont change things but I think its just letting off steam but I think its over the top the way its kicked off and still going on ax. Hope it dont damage UK Muay Thai too much.

p.s. In a National, International or World REAL title WMC or IMC as such you do mark each round so you have to mark it as you see it each round but in so doing have to be conservitive in your scoring so as you still stick to the essence of the rules. A MAD (Muay Thai Against Drugs) WMC title is not what I would call a real title but still prestigious enough if you get to fight for it you must be a very highly rated fighter. See clear as mud :P

Whether I agree or disagree with the Rule set its the one they use in Thailand so if I want to fight Pure Muay Thai they are the rules, if not I should go join a Tennis club or something but that would not be pretty.
Above is my understanding of the rules IMHO.

EDDY L give it a rest, I know who you are if you dont want to be part of the IMC then just ignore it and do your own thing. I might not agree with all the rules and structures within the IMC as Craig and Sean know and are usually deafened by my outburst at meetings but thats called democracy. But the alternative of not being part of a national orginisation is a non organised group of clubs I think its the IMC is the better option. Mayby not hiding behind a sudoname might gain your views more respect.
Just a thought.:rolleyes:

Paul Kelly you should be running the country!

BridgestoneThai

Seamus,

Got to agree the UKMF did not handle it well and did not even follow their own guidelines so made them open for a lot of criticisim and have no one to blame but themselves but it has now got out of hand and I think all UK Muay Thai may suffer over this.

Yes the IMC have a ruling in place as their member gyms fighters cannot fight Muay Thai against any other non members gyms and you know me that I sincerely wish it was not so. It is frustrating but thats the rules. you will find similar rules in lots of National Orginisations so its not that unusual. Main reasons is that since its an officially recognised body by the Irish Sports council it has to uphold certain strict safety guidelines like compulsory yearly medicals for fighters, liciensing and fight recording which most officially recognised sporting bodies would be required to have which would go against safety regulations if an IMC promotion if they allowed a fighter from a non member gym without the required medical or proper record of experience and if he got seriously injured how would you explain this as being best practice to your Nationional Sporting Council?? It has then got to be the same if one of our IMC fighters fought on a non IMC show and got seriously injured how do we explain that we allowed a fighter to fight on an unregulated show that may not have followed best practice??

I know its hard to grasp this sometimes myself included as in the old days once our show were insured then we were coverd so happy days but I know Insurance companies and they will try get out of backing a claim if they see rules not adhered to, I know as it nearly happened to me and only I had video evidence and had full medical, safety procedures in place it could have ruined me personally so wont take that chance again.. You may get away with it but I would now tend to favour the safer option which is the National recognised body.

I know its not perfect and I dont have to get on with everyone involved in the IMC but I still prefer to be a member. I think the split is more about personalitys, mistrust, on both sides rather than rules and wish they would just bury the hatchet, but not in each other:rolleyes:. As there are great fighters on both sides and would make a very strong National organisation but I cant see it ever happening as humans are humans. You dont have to like someone to work with them as I get on better with some non IMC coaches than with some IMC coaches (especially than illegal immigrant Jamie C, and btw I thought I already run the country anyway:P).

I think if people would be bigger than their personal feelings and do it for the expansion of Irish Muay Thai imagine the shows we could put on with twice as much local talant instead of having to get as many overseas fighters wouldnt it be brilliant, unfortunatly with humans being involved I dont think this will ever happen as each side is putting the blame on each other with dislikes and mistrust and we will have probably the usual retorts now after my post here from both sides giving reasons why its the others side fault and they they have to make the first move etc,etc,etc, yawn, yawn.

So its a free world and all should do what they see best if they want to be part of it, be part of it if not , well thats democracy. I do wish all gyms and their fighters best of luck in the future. But I wish people would just think on it.:)

chprt

Khannie


Oh sweet Jesus... can you look up the files there... I think someone has hacked into Bridgestone account.... can you check this out as a matter of urgency :D:D:D

seamus cogan

Paul thanks for the reply its one of the most coherent responses I've read regarding this matter, the question of safety doesnt really stand up though when you when you figure that best practice i.e. ambulance crew doctor etc is followed by both sides on their shows. the UKMF and the WMC regularly mix with other sanctioning bodies, fighters from Bad company in Leeds for instance fight on UKMF shows but are free to fight anywhere else as well,
It is only in Ireland that this fundamentalist 'with us or against us' approach is taken to exteme, and you and I know it has nothing to do with safety. if it was a safety/ insurance then why ban judges from helping on non IMC shows.

It would be a fairly simple matter to put criteria in place whereby all safety protocol was met to a standard and then in theory there shouldnt be anything stopping some gool ol tear ups(in the ring)

Eddy L

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DPo-H6u-RiY

gregmarah

old news now eddy

Eddy L

Well folks the fights up,you can make your own mind up on the descion.

There has been a lot of wild Accuastions made about judges,corruption etc.A lot of people on this forum saying unless you were ringside and seen the fight you do not know,they do get carried away on Ax do the brits and stick by each other so you do not know untill you have seen the fight.but for me i was convinced from day one because of the fact so many people who where at the show posted up saying robbery,no smoke with out fire.

If the fight was as close as people where trying to make out i.e craig and ukmf,then craig was well in his rights to call this fight a draw but after watching the fight its a disgrace.i did say in my original post orders from thailand stephan fox,well sadly its looking true.the only judge who could not be influnced by wmc was chris podesta and gave the fight 50-48 wakeling.

The UKMF have hung craig out to dry,coming out stating craig said he changed his score card,where craig has said he has not.

Also does any body know why Ryan Rudkin was the man to total up the score cards and not the head judge.?

Peetrik

Well the fight itself has just come out in fairness Greg.

Nothing in it as far as I could see, can see how it could easily be a draw. The comentator Vinny is completely bias though, had to turn the sound off to concentrate

Eddy L

gregmarah wrote: »

old news now eddy

Not on Boards greg.

A lot of people who view this do not follow thai boxing or ax so need to know espescially if they have this topic.


By the way who do you think won the fight.

Eddy L

The best thing to come out of this shambles is the start of the end of the UKMF.

http://message.axkickboxing.com/index.phtml?action=dispthread&topic=36700&topicgroup=axmain&junk=4865

Eddy L

Nothing in it as far as I could see, can see how it could easily be a draw. The comentator Vinny is completely bias though, had to turn the sound off to concentrate[/QUOTE]


Well over on AX tony myers says straight forward win for wakeling.

But thats your opinion peetrik.

gregmarah

looking at the fight the other night at home on the Tv i scored it (with my limited judging skills) to Wakeling , draw for the first 2 , 10-9 levin in the 3rd , 9-10 wakeling in the 4th and 5th. But talking to Craig about this last night he has a very good reason for calling it a draw. Wakeling simply didn't come out fighting til the 4th round which he won, the 5th he won not as convincingly. Just left it too late.. and didn't warrant the win outright. may i add its a lot different when your watching a fight ringside and watching it on TV, as u may know yourself.

gregmarah

i agree about the commentator , if he could climb in the ring and lick Wakelings arse during the fight he would of :D:D:D:D

Peetrik

Eddy L wrote: »

Well over on AX tony myers says straight forward win for wakeling.

But thats your opinion peetrik.

Haha clear cut to the likes of Tony Myers maybe. I did give it to Wakeling but I didnt think it was clear cut, nowhere near enough to justify the outrage that it sparked.
Obviously Tony is right and it would be easy for me to just agree with him but there you go, just being completely honest I found it a tough one to call even without the pressure of being there.

Khannie

gregmarah wrote: »

i agree about the commentator , if he could climb in the ring and lick Wakelings arse during the fight he would of :D:D:D:D

HAHAHA. So true. At one point Levin scored a lovely straight knee (great little score it was too) while Wakeling just clipped him with a left hook on Levins way in. Well....you'd never know from the commentary that Levin had landed anything. A bit of bias is to be expected in commentary when there's a local lad fighting a foreign lad but by god that was way OTT.

Had to turn it off after round 3 yesterday. Going to watch the rest with the sound off now.

gregmarah

its actually a lot better to concentrate on the fight without the sound , you pick up on a lot more scores without the bias ****e

Khannie

Eddy L wrote: »

i did say in my original post orders from thailand stephan fox,well sadly its looking true.

You know Eddy..... some of your posts are really informative and put forward decent arguments, but this kind of nonsense speculation just ruins them. They're borderline slander. As a mod I'm telling you to knock unfounded allegations on the head. As a non-mod: I don't know Craig very well but in no way do I believe for one second that he would "take orders" from anyone on how to score a fight. I don't think that even the people that don't get on with him would believe that of him for one second. You've no proof to back up stuff like that either. It's just wild speculation.

Back to the fight in question: Fourth round pretty close. Fifth round easy win for Wakeling IMO. Plenty of unanswered kicks. While Levin was landing lots of body shots and some good straight knees in the 4th and 5th it wasn't enough for me.

It wasn't a runaway win though and with the pressure of having to make a decision in short order and given the split from the other two judges I can easily see how in the heat of the moment a judge might think that wakeling hadn't done enough for a clear win. I think the level of scrutiny it's been subject to is ridiculous.

Again though I think the judge who gave it to Levin should be the focus of all the raging that's going on. In no way did Levin win that fight, nor do I see how anyone could give it to him.

On a side note: Those ropes looked very loose for big lads like that. Pet hate of mine the oul' loose ropes. The tighter the better IMO. That feeling that you might go over the top in the middle of a fight is nasty.

Khannie

gregmarah wrote: »

its actually a lot better to concentrate on the fight without the sound , you pick up on a lot more scores without the bias ****e

Yeah, no question it's better without the sound. I love hearing the crowd and the music but it was well worth sacrificing so as not to have to listen to yer man.