Amy Broadhurst.

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Amy was robbed.
Disgraceful.
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/boxing/dundalks-amy-broadhurst-left-tears-controversial-defeat-world-championships-185518

I have to say that was a close bout.
Judging by comments going around I though it was going to be a clearcut robbery, but I can't say it was.

The point deduction was utterly ridiculous though. It was a lovely clean punch. There were numerous right 'hooks' that looked slappy early on, but he never called them, then deducts her for a perfect punch.

The 'knockdown' was unclear, but I thought it could have been a tangle/balance issue rather than any clean punch.

Somebody with better technical knowledge than me explain how that is not a knockdown in R3? How can you actually slip from a standing still position?

All I will say about that referee is he is really great to be able to see Amy slapping - have watched it several times in slow mo and still can’t see it - and then to be able to see the slip that no one else appeared to witness.

I’ve heard people suggest the warning made no difference which is not so. It absolutely gave the Indian fighter the impetus to finish stronger - which in fairness to her she admitted - and I believe possibly would give any wavering judges a good reason to tip the balance in her favour as well.

The knock down was more crucial and was a bad, bad non-decision. She was hard done by, I believe that is a fact, not sour grapes.

Incidentally, there was some curious judging in the preceding fight that also favoured, perhaps coincidentally, another home fighter.

Can’t agree with people giving Indian girl round 1. Quite clear round for Broadhurst, so many more clean hits and finished it in control. Second closer but Kaur May have shaded it.

It’s all about the last round. Two big decisions that went one way for reasons that referee should be made to explain in some shape or form.

walshb wrote: »

Rd 1 was not clear at all..

Couldn’t see the KD clearly, but either way it is just one punch. It was far from a heavy shot...

Slapping? He did warn her about it. The shot she landed that got the warning (which did not affect the result anyway) I couldn’t see clearly...

In the context it doesn’t matter what any of us think about R1. Because looking at the scorecards it seems almost certain 4 judges gave it to Broadhurst. That’s how I’d read it anyway. The Algerian judge? Nothing to say there.

So you’re suggesting the warning didn’t affect it and, if given, the knockdown wouldn’t have made a difference either? In a fight as close as that one. Maybe I’m less knowledgeable about it but I’m very unconvinced by that.

In the previous fight to that one, Sonia, a very tall Indian welter, was slapping away to her hearts content without a word from the ref. But Broadhurst is taken to account for shots nobody - even with the benefit of replay - can verify were actually slapping.

The judging system is not like it used to be...when a count or a knockdown was very much a rd winner..

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Referees in all sports are subject to review of their performance. It is s very normal thing. Same should apply in boxing.

I am not a keyboard warrior, I will argue my case fairly here so less of your nonsense thanks.

And maybe he did have to review and “explain” himself, not that I think this is necessary for this bout...

As for the keyboard warrior comment of mine....I would have thought by now you would have known that I was not including you here...we have engaged/debated many a time, and always civilly...your “knowing” me should have alerted you here...

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok that’s fair enough. We can let that pass. Maybe they do have to explain, doubt it but not sure.

I guess if people are happy that ref did a satisfactory job, that there was indeed a slip in R3 and Amy Broadhurst was repeatedly illegally punching, then that’s fine. There’s not much left to debate here.

The referee, like every referee made a split second call as regards the slip...

I need to see it in slo-mo, but even if “I” think it was a KD, so what? That is me watching a video of it, and re-watching...referees make calls live, and sometimes they get it wrong. They’re human. It is part of the sport...it was a split second incident, one engagement/exchange that I think arguing about means little here...

The Indian girl was every bit as deserving of the victory as Broadhurst.

pac_man wrote: »

I had a look back at the incident and thought the ref made the right call. I thought it was more of a clash in momentum/balance issue than a slip. When you are standing almost square, you're automatically off balance and it doesn't take much to push you over. Broasthurt threw a jab to the body which landed and the momentum from the left hook that she threw and didn't land, meant that the Indian was pushed over.

How certain are you that left hook doesn’t land? I mean I’ve watched it possibly 30 times now and it looks to land pretty flush to me, not saying it’s a knockout punch or anything but I still can’t fully buy the slip/loss of balance line.

Kevin Byrne has a couple of replays of it up on his twitter feed. There’s one where the camera is behind Amy and seems to show the left landing cleanly to me.

How would it have affected the fight if ref gives it? Another question I guess.

pac_man wrote: »

I think it's fairly decisive.

1:34:18 and pause on that video I posted up. You tell me if that's a punch that has landed flush. I disagree. From what I can see, the hook went around the back of Indians head and didn't connect. The Indian is off balance and Broadhurst from the momentum of her punch, causes the Indian to fall and trip over. The ref is actually looking at their feet during that split second.

I watched the final round at the slowest speed and I would concede that I’m definitely less than certain about the left. It’s not easy to see even slowed up, but Kaur does seem to be off balance alright. I still wouldn’t say the left definitely misses, but she may well have been falling anyway. Benefit of doubt, maybe that’s fair enough.

Also, just before that, when he gives the caution, Amy clearly catches her opponent on the side of the head, so that’s fair enough.

But when warning comes, I still don’t see what punch he is penalizing. It’s very very marginal at the worst. Watching again I felt Amy had had the better of that round to that point, but Kaur - galvanized by the warning - upped the pace and finished stronger. That may have been the deciding factor I think.

I shouldn’t bother responding to last post but will make this my last word on it. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t believe I have used the word robbery or massive injustice anywhere on this thread. The poster is the only one using those terms.

Mission? My only purpose is to point out that I believe Amy Broadhurst to have been desperately unlucky to lose that fight and overall I feel she was better boxer, scored more and better hits but, unluckily for her, did not get the verdict.

In fairness pac man made a very good case on the knockdown and I willingly take that on board. But unless someone can convince me the warning was a fair call against her, then I stick by my call. That’s the decisive moment in the fight because it changes everything. Kaur tacitly acknowledged as much in her post fight interview.

But hey, that’s sport at all levels and of any hue. For many and varied reasons, the best performer doesn’t always win. Doesn’t mean high jinks have taken place but doesn’t mean it is any easier to take at the same time.

I watched the KD again. I don't think the referee can be criticized here. It looked, as pac_man said it to look.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If I am right about anything at all on this thread it is about the warning. It is absolutely decisive. It changes the dynamic of the fight totally. I mean, that’s not even my opinion alone. Watch Kaurs post match interview again. She willingly admits as much herself. Up to that point Amy is boxing well and in control I thought, after the warning the impetus is with Kaur, the crowd is even more behind her and she finishes stronger. If the warning has not contributed to that, then I know even less about this sport than I thought.

That’s the reason I labour the point. Of course, it may well be that even without the warning the fight goes against her, but once it is administered then her fate is all but settled as far as I’m concerned.

Am I missing something? Didn't the warning happen in the latter half of rd 3?

Most of the fight was finished then, with an argument that the Indian was already 2-0 up in rds...

And there is no way to say that the warning changed anything as regards the following action.

I really see this as clutching at straws now...

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah you’re missing a few things. It was 1-1 in rounds on 4 scorecards going into the last. The Algerian judge thought different but I have a feeling s/he was mistakenly watching the other ring.

The warning came with almost 1 minute left which is a lot of time in a close contest.

There is every reason to say the warning changed things when the winner actually said during her post fight interview that it had given her renewed energy and confidence. No, I can’t actually prove it, but I am as confident about it as I could be.

Not missing much.....

I knew the warning was in the latter half of rd 3....

I am debating this not from the judges perspective, but from my judging of the bout. There was no reason I could see that the Indian could not have been 2-0 up in rds....

Bottom line.....the result was a fair result in a competitive fight.

walshb wrote: »

Not missing much.....

I knew the warning was in the latter half of rd 3....

I am debating this not from the judges perspective, but from my judging of the bout. There was no reason I could see that the Indian could not have been 2-0 up in rds....

Bottom line.....the result was a fair result in a competitive fight.

What we are debating has nothing to do with your scoring of the fight or mine for that matter.

It’s just 99% that it’s 1-1 on 3 scorecards going into last while 1 judge was with Amy and another with her opponent. That’s the reality of the fight rather than our perception of it and that’s what we should be focused on here.

Bottom line...you’re entitled to your opinion and that’s ok with me.

walshb wrote: »

One judge had it 30-26, which meant the warning had no effect.....that judge thought the Indian won all rds. And one was scored a 10-8, the 3rd......

Not entirely sure of the other permutations....the point deduction is not performed by the judges. It is performed by the supervisor I believe.

The thread title is way off the mark. That's the important point.

Well she was deducted a point on all cards as all cards show a 4 point ‘below par’ score.

The 28-28 score would have been a win for broadhust as would the 29-27 score for her (which would have been 30-27) but the Indian would still have won 3-2