|
|
Post by len on Jun 20, 2007 21:55:42 GMT -5
Jamie beat Jane at Foxwoods on ESPN. The Judges were generous 98-92 x 2, 100-90. I had Jamie winning 96-94 with Couch coming on in the middle rounds before tiring at the end. Jamie threw 99 punches in round ten. Both ladies fought well, but Jamie built an early lead with a jump in, jump back stratagy. This confused Jane until round four when she finally began timing Jamie. Teddy Atlas may have put it best, the youth of Clampitt (30 to 38) topped the experience of Couch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernie McCoy on Jun 21, 2007 17:22:51 GMT -5
The judges were the worst thing about the nite. I wonder if they may have been imports from New Mexico.
Clampitt fought great, her movement was good throughout the bout, outstanding in the first half. Couch is as tough as they come (ask Rijker) and she has no quit in her.
I thought 98-92 was a slight stretch, it indicated all the close rounds went to Clampitt. 100-90 was Stevie Wonder dumb. I had it 97-95, I gave Clampitt rounds 1-3 and 5 and 6. I gave Couch 4, 7 and 9, I had 8 and 10 even. I think Atlas had it 6-3-1 (97-94) and if I had to guess he probably gave Clampitt the last round.
A good fight wasted on the judges.
Bernie
|
|
|
|
Post by Rick Scharmberg on Jun 22, 2007 7:59:14 GMT -5
Promoters advantage. JUST KIDDING!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jun 22, 2007 18:40:35 GMT -5
The judges were the worst thing about the nite. I wonder if they may have been imports from New Mexico. Clampitt fought great, her movement was good throughout the bout, outstanding in the first half. Couch is as tough as they come (ask Rijker) and she has no quit in her. I thought 98-92 was a slight stretch, it indicated all the close rounds went to Clampitt. 100-90 was Stevie Wonder dumb. I had it 97-95, I gave Clampitt rounds 1-3 and 5 and 6. I gave Couch 4, 7 and 9, I had 8 and 10 even. I think Atlas had it 6-3-1 (97-94) and if I had to guess he probably gave Clampitt the last round. A good fight wasted on the judges. Bernie … I scored the bout 97-97 with Jaime Clampitt winning rounds 1,2,3; Jane Couch winning 5,6,7; and rounds 4,8,9,10 even. In round 4, Clampitt stopped her in-out movement and Couch stung her twice (the round could have gone to Couch). In round 6, Couch outlanded Clampitt 31-23. In round 7, the referee warned the fighters to “watch your heads.” In round 8, Clampitt was warned to “stop holding” by the referee. Clampitt threw 99 punches in round 10, but many didn’t land, were blocked, and many were slap-type punches. In England, Couch wins. The three judges have scored Clampitt fights before. Concerning the 100-90 score, Couch must have thought she was back in Albuquerque. When this score was announced, she had a big smile on her face. To give Couch no credit for her performance is an insult. She’s in good company – other fighters have been treated this way as well. The 98-92 score twice means these judges saw no even rounds. Judges, it’s OK to score rounds even; you do not have to pick a winner for each round. Someone should interview Couch and Tex Woodward. They spoke candidly after the Holly Holm fight, so they should be willing to discuss this contest. Ask why they took this fight, if they thought they could win again in Connecticut, and how they were treated. I’m also withdrawing my “nomination” of Teddy Atlas to head a national boxing commission. Recently, Atlas has been too accommodating to local fighters (as evident by his 97-94 score). Dr. Margaret Goodman is my new nominee. Dr. Goodman, a neurologist, is certainly knowledgeable in the medical aspects of the fighting sports and has the personality to deal with promoters. She’s disliked by some of the top promoters which increases her qualifications in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jun 22, 2007 21:16:12 GMT -5
Anyone who scores four out of ten rounds even should go to Japan where they like that kind of "can't-make-my-mind-up" scoring.
Clampitt, from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Rhode Island, is not from Connecticut - and her record there is 4-3-1. But, oh horror, the judges there have "scored her fights before" ... so hello ... it's conspiracy time!!
Jane looked her 38 years, often clinching to slow things down in the later rounds when she needed to push the action to keep a brief advantage. Jaime used more angles, was more agile, busier especially at the end, took advantage of Jane's slow start and linear style, especially early. Couple of rounds where Jaime went linear herself, Jane timed her well and scored some good shots, but Jane didn't press Jaime for very long even when Jaime made tactical errors and fought Jane's style. (Jane would have punished her for that a few years back).
Jaime was still on her "A" game, Jane looked a tad past hers, so Jaime won this rematch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jun 22, 2007 21:21:56 GMT -5
Promoters advantage. JUST KIDDING!!! Yeah and Jaime's a Canadian not a Mexican, so she gets "JR'd" for that too  It's pretty predictable, if you beat Mia, you get onto his hit list ... |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Dobbs on Jun 22, 2007 22:46:32 GMT -5
The judges were the worst thing about the nite. I wonder if they may have been imports from New Mexico. Clampitt fought great, her movement was good throughout the bout, outstanding in the first half. Couch is as tough as they come (ask Rijker) and she has no quit in her. I thought 98-92 was a slight stretch, it indicated all the close rounds went to Clampitt. 100-90 was Stevie Wonder dumb. I had it 97-95, I gave Clampitt rounds 1-3 and 5 and 6. I gave Couch 4, 7 and 9, I had 8 and 10 even. I think Atlas had it 6-3-1 (97-94) and if I had to guess he probably gave Clampitt the last round. A good fight wasted on the judges. Bernie … I scored the bout 97-97 with Jaime Clampitt winning rounds 1,2,3; Jane Couch winning 5,6,7; and rounds 4,8,9,10 even. In round 4, Clampitt stopped her in-out movement and Couch stung her twice (the round could have gone to Couch). In round 6, Couch outlanded Clampitt 31-23. In round 7, the referee warned the fighters to “watch your heads.” In round 8, Clampitt was warned to “stop holding” by the referee. Clampitt threw 99 punches in round 10, but many didn’t land, were blocked, and many were slap-type punches. In England, Couch wins. The three judges have scored Clampitt fights before. Concerning the 100-90 score, Couch must have thought she was back in Albuquerque. When this score was announced, she had a big smile on her face. To give Couch no credit for her performance is an insult. She’s in good company – other fighters have been treated this way as well. The 98-92 score twice means these judges saw no even rounds. Judges, it’s OK to score rounds even; you do not have to pick a winner for each round. Someone should interview Couch and Tex Woodward. They spoke candidly after the Holly Holm fight, so they should be willing to discuss this contest. Ask why they took this fight, if they thought they could win again in Connecticut, and how they were treated. I’m also withdrawing my “nomination” of Teddy Atlas to head a national boxing commission. Recently, Atlas has been too accommodating to local fighters (as evident by his 97-94 score). Dr. Margaret Goodman is my new nominee. Dr. Goodman, a neurologist, is certainly knowledgeable in the medical aspects of the fighting sports and has the personality to deal with promoters. She’s disliked by some of the top promoters which increases her qualifications in my book. This may be the worst most ill conceived post I have ever read. |
|
|
|
Post by Ted Panagiotis on Jun 23, 2007 8:24:18 GMT -5
I don't wish to get in any arguments, but if it's any consolation to JR, Jane Couch agreed that she lost. She felt she won about three rounds. She was cool with the decision, as was Tex, and we even spoke about maybe trying to do a third fight in England. Tex is a very nice guy BTW, and Jane was very cool as well.
Yes some of the judges have scored Jaime's fights before, in fact Glen Feldman scored against Jaime in both the first Couch fight and the second Olson fight.
No reputable judge in the world is going to score 4 rounds even, that is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jun 24, 2007 21:59:59 GMT -5
Promoters advantage. JUST KIDDING!!! Yeah and Jaime's a Canadian not a Mexican, so she gets "JR'd" for that too It's pretty predictable, if you beat Mia, you get onto his hit list ... Instead of WAGing for a motive to my postings, try this one: Honesty in promotion, venue, and officiating; that is, a level playing field for the athletes. Mia St. John, as I've stated before, is a lightning rod in boxing, attracting many of its ills. I hope she has the courage to "name names" in her upcoming book. St. John is a American of Mexican heritage, not a Mexican. Your comment could be interpreted as racist. I hope your Albuquerque connections aren't "coloring" your postings. |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jun 24, 2007 23:05:43 GMT -5
JR...Mia naming names? Jeez, that would be so hard to guess who those could possibly be?
Lets hope she dedicates a chapter on how she became the "named" and "identifyied" IBA Featherweight Champion on the cover of Playboy while she knew dam well it was Deborah Nichols, a lady she was deathly afraid to fight. And lets hope she doesn't refer back to the "queen of the four rounders" "championship" belt as the "title" that Playboy "mistook" ( and profited from) for Deb's title. But she did have one thing right, dodging Deborah kept Mia's fighting career alive. I've met some motivated fighters in my day, none more motivated than Deborah Nichols to fight Mia. So Mia showed her business savvey once again- run from the lady that is going to clean up the ring with you and then send her a mocking email explaining why she can't meet her in the ring.
So when Mia's "tell all" comes out, I will go to the library and ask them when they are getting a copy I can read. I'm sure it will be fascinating and full of amazing revelations that pull back the curtain on the dastardly sport of boxing promotion.
Mia and "naming names" in the same paragraph, now thats high quality humor !
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jun 24, 2007 23:05:51 GMT -5
St. John is a American of Mexican heritage, not a Mexican. Your comment could be interpreted as racist. I hope your Albuquerque connections aren't "coloring" your postings. I never said that Mia is a Mexican, but if you ever get to talk to her instead of just emailing her Bernie McCoy's collected works, you will learn that she is very proud of her heritage, so any offense is all in your head, along with some other misconceptions, it seems. I have however noticed YOUR propensity for pouring cold water on the careers of successful Canadians - Jaime Clampitt, Jelena Mrdjenovich, Lisa Brown, Jessica Rakoczy - and especially on anyone who beats Mia! So I am wondering about your anti-Canadian attitude and where THAT comes from ;D I also do not have any "Albuquerque connections". I have corrected some of your mis-statements about cards and judges there, but I just do my research more carefully than you, it seems. Maybe that's not so hard to do. |
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jun 25, 2007 16:50:32 GMT -5
St. John is a American of Mexican heritage, not a Mexican. Your comment could be interpreted as racist. I hope your Albuquerque connections aren't "coloring" your postings. I never said that Mia is a Mexican, but if you ever get to talk to her instead of just emailing her Bernie McCoy's collected works, you will learn that she is very proud of her heritage, so any offense is all in your head, along with some other misconceptions, it seems. I have however noticed YOUR propensity for pouring cold water on the careers of successful Canadians - Jaime Clampitt, Jelena Mrdjenovich, Lisa Brown, Jessica Rakoczy - and especially on anyone who beats Mia! So I am wondering about your anti-Canadian attitude and where THAT comes from ;D I also do not have any "Albuquerque connections". I have corrected some of your mis-statements about cards and judges there, but I just do my research more carefully than you, it seems. Maybe that's not so hard to do. Your conclusion about “successful Canadians” and “anyone who beats Mia” is incorrect. Clampitt, Mrdjenovich, Rakoczy, along with Holly Holm, benefit the most from the Promoter’s Advantage. That’s my common denominator for this list of boxers. And concerning no “Albuquerque connections”, have you ever been a contributor to any of Chris Cozzone’s websites? Did I see your name listed as a contributor at one time? |
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jun 25, 2007 16:57:31 GMT -5
JR...Mia naming names? Jeez, that would be so hard to guess who those could possibly be? Lets hope she dedicates a chapter on how she became the "named" and "identifyied" IBA Featherweight Champion on the cover of Playboy while she knew dam well it was Deborah Nichols, a lady she was deathly afraid to fight. And lets hope she doesn't refer back to the "queen of the four rounders" "championship" belt as the "title" that Playboy "mistook" ( and profited from) for Deb's title. But she did have one thing right, dodging Deborah kept Mia's fighting career alive. I've met some motivated fighters in my day, none more motivated than Deborah Nichols to fight Mia. So Mia showed her business savvey once again- run from the lady that is going to clean up the ring with you and then send her a mocking email explaining why she can't meet her in the ring. So when Mia's "tell all" comes out, I will go to the library and ask them when they are getting a copy I can read. I'm sure it will be fascinating and full of amazing revelations that pull back the curtain on the dastardly sport of boxing promotion. Mia and "naming names" in the same paragraph, now thats high quality humor ! TD TD, www.saddoboxing.com/4695-exclusive-boxing-interview-john.html#more-4695St. John says she will “name names” in this 2/8/2007 interview with Jim Everett of Saddoboxing. Here’s an excerpt. Let’s she if she follows through: SB: What are some of the other things that you’re doing in your career?
MS: “I have two books coming out; a health and fitness book and my memoirs. My second workout DVD comes out in the spring and the book will follow with it. When my memoirs come out, that’s when I expose everybody in boxing and expose all the corruption (laughing).”
SB: Do you expect any negative feedback?
MS: “Sure. I am so looking forward to it. I am sure all the promoters would love to strangle me and don’t want me saying anything. I just feel that there has been so much corruption for so long in boxing and I want to expose it. I am on the side of the fighters; I have always been on the side of the fighters.
“We go out there and risk our lives and risk our brain cells and the promoters don’t seem to care. Everybody is in on it; it’s like the good ol’ boys club. You have the commission, the judges, the officials and the promoters and they are all part of this club that no one can seem to take down. It’s not that I want to take anyone down but I would just like to expose it.”
SB: Without giving away too much of your book can you tell me one of the worst things that you seen in the sport of boxing?
MS: “I have seen so many bad things. Things that would make your stomach turn. There is just so much illegal stuff that goes on and just too much corruption. It just breaks my heart when it comes to the fighters.” atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A688You weren’t Deborah Nichols’ manager at the time but, according to this article, you notified her of St. John’s Playboy pictorial. Did you or anyone else attempt to correctly identify Nichols as the title holder? Was Dean Chance of the IBA contacted to have Playboy print a retraction? And as far as St. John avoiding a contest with Nichols, Top Rank was picking St. John’s opponents until she severed ties in 2001. And women’s boxing is full of fighters avoiding top competition. Christy Martin and Lucia Rijker can list a few. |
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jun 25, 2007 17:02:48 GMT -5
The judges were the worst thing about the nite. I wonder if they may have been imports from New Mexico. Clampitt fought great, her movement was good throughout the bout, outstanding in the first half. Couch is as tough as they come (ask Rijker) and she has no quit in her. I thought 98-92 was a slight stretch, it indicated all the close rounds went to Clampitt. 100-90 was Stevie Wonder dumb. I had it 97-95, I gave Clampitt rounds 1-3 and 5 and 6. I gave Couch 4, 7 and 9, I had 8 and 10 even. I think Atlas had it 6-3-1 (97-94) and if I had to guess he probably gave Clampitt the last round. A good fight wasted on the judges. Bernie Bernie McCoy wrote: Steve Epstein, from all reports, enjoys a good reputation as a boxing judge. He has "worked" other women's bouts, notably the Clampitt/St John bout in February along with many top male bouts in this country and abroad. But, on a great night for Jaime Clampitt, on a terrific night for the sport of Women's boxing, Steve Epstein had what one is forced to call a bad night for a good boxing judge.His scoring of the Clampitt-St. John bout (another 100-90) was a “bad night” for this judge as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jun 25, 2007 22:50:45 GMT -5
Your conclusion about “successful Canadians” and “anyone who beats Mia” is incorrect. But it's based on stats just like your "promoter's advantage", i.e. according to you if there's a correlation then there just HAS to be something untoward going on. If you're a successful Canadian boxer, JR will criticize you and accuse you of promoter advantage - works for Clampitt, Mrdjenovich, Rakoczy, Lisa Brown. If you have the gall to beat Mia and your local press writes about it, JR's on your case. Works for Holm, Rakoczy, Clampitt, Mrdjenovich, Dierdorff. Bingo - if stats make facts (as JR claims with his stats) then it's a fact and there's no point denying it  And concerning no “Albuquerque connections”, have you ever been a contributor to any of Chris Cozzone’s websites? Did I see your name listed as a contributor at one time? Yes, but if that makes an "Albuquerque connection" for me you're a bigger (or wackier) conspiracy theorist than I already gave you credit for. Since 1996 I have contributed to lots of web sites (and run my own), all completely for free. If you think anyone who ever contributed material to InsideWomensBoxing got an "Albuquerque connection" just by doing that, then you're really grasping at straws. Hey Rick Scharmberg, how's your "Albuquerque connection" these days? (But I kinda figured you as a straw-grasper when you pegged Canada/Trinidad boxer Lisa Brown as a home girl over Los Lunas boxer Jackie Chavez in Isleta, and when you said Kelsey Jeffries was promoted by AROTO and Rhonda Luna wasn't.) Listen up now - I have no "connection" of any kind to any Albuquerque promoter, boxer, trainer or gym, I don't live or work in New Mexico. However, I HAVE visited there and when I did I paid attention to what's where. So I know it's not part of Canada or Trinidad ... |
|
|
|
Post by Bernie McCoy on Jun 26, 2007 6:09:25 GMT -5
instead of just emailing her Bernie McCoy's collected works, Coming soon to a remainder bin near you |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jun 26, 2007 13:26:45 GMT -5
MS: “Sure. I am so looking forward to it. I am sure all the promoters would love to strangle me and don’t want me saying anything. I just feel that there has been so much corruption for so long in boxing and I want to expose it. I am on the side of the fighters; I have always been on the side of the fighters.
“We go out there and risk our lives and risk our brain cells and the promoters don’t seem to care. Everybody is in on it; it’s like the good ol’ boys club. You have the commission, the judges, the officials and the promoters and they are all part of this club that no one can seem to take down. It’s not that I want to take anyone down but I would just like to expose it.”
SB: Without giving away too much of your book can you tell me one of the worst things that you seen in the sport of boxing?
MS: “I have seen so many bad things. Things that would make your stomach turn. There is just so much illegal stuff that goes on and just too much corruption. It just breaks my heart when it comes to the fighters.” [/i]
Did you or anyone else attempt to correctly identify Nichols as the title holder? Was Dean Chance of the IBA contacted to have Playboy print a retraction?
And as far as St. John avoiding a contest with Nichols, Top Rank was picking St. John’s opponents until she severed ties in 2001. And women’s boxing is full of fighters avoiding top competition. Christy Martin and Lucia Rijker can list a few.
[/quote]
What about AFTER Top Rank, when Mia was challenged many times by Nichols. Then, the lady that claims to "care so much about fighters" says this:
“Deb who? Who cares about Deb Nichols? The public is waiting for me and Christy to fight. Deb is mad because Playboy, as well as other magazines failed to put “4 round IBA champion” and just put “IBA champion,” when clearly they knew it was a 4-round belt. I don't even use that title anymore! The bottom line is, no one even knows Deb Nichols and no one cares, so why fight her? No promoter is going to pay big money to fight an unknown. That's just the nature of this business. Boxing is a business not a charity foundation. I am a businesswoman making the best business decisions for me and my family. And so far, my decisions have been pretty good. By the way, has Deb even fought in the last decade?”
What was even funnier, the public was NOT waiting for Mia V. Martin. Did you see the number of seats filled in detroit? The number of PPV buys?
Mia cannot have things both ways...she cannot in one breath or sentance say something to effect that boxing is corrupt while she is cashing checks from that same corruption. Is that not "party to the corruption?".
Everyone gets a chance for redemption when they truely come clean and confess to what THEY did wrong, and of course, ask for forgiveness. There is NO doubt that Mia profited off of Playboy's cover TITLE CLAIM. As did Playboy.
Was there a retraction or explanation by Playboy? Or FIT Magazine? Or "Fighting Females"?
What about those magazines that came AFTER Playboy, if Mia, as claimed, said PLAYBOY-DEAN MADE THE MISTAKE...she allowed that mistake to continue and to make her money.
You allow anyone to STEAL in broad daylight so they can profit and pay YOU a fee, you are part of the deception.
Is Mia going to apologize and fight Nichols?
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jun 26, 2007 13:31:34 GMT -5
Jamie beat Jane at Foxwoods on ESPN. The Judges were generous 98-92 x 2, 100-90. I had Jamie winning 96-94 with Couch coming on in the middle rounds before tiring at the end. Jamie threw 99 punches in round ten. Both ladies fought well, but Jamie built an early lead with a jump in, jump back stratagy. This confused Jane until round four when she finally began timing Jamie. Teddy Atlas may have put it best, the youth of Clampitt (30 to 38) topped the experience of Couch. Len, I did not see Couch-Clampitt #2, but I consider Couch to be a very light puncher, a square up fighter who pushes alot of punches. She had so much more heart than technical skill. Did she land any meanful shots? When you have 3 judges in agreement, it is almost meaningless as to how much in agreement they were or were NOT, the fact is evident, Couch clearly lost. I have yet to hear someone, anyone, from home or peanut gallery claim that Couch won or came close to winning. I've heard more comments to effect, clampitt should have been scored 10s in MORE rounds than she did. TD Promoters advantage or Promoters Skill in picking better fighters? |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jun 26, 2007 22:51:58 GMT -5
Promoters advantage or Promoters Skill in picking better fighters? Good question! My answer was - Of course promoters like winners and will keep promoting them. which may account for a lot of JR's advantage "metric". Then his own bias (which includes asserting promoter relationships that don't exist - like for Kelsey Jeffries) and his scoring against boxers who have defeated Mia St. John, adds some more. Jane Couch clearly lost to Jaime Clampitt this time, Jane was not at her best, whatever the reasons, while Jaime was, and that was enough to make a clear win for Jaime. JR's the only person I've heard of who thought it was anywhere near a draw, (and Jaime was coming off a win over Mia St. John, so it figures that he's reluctant to give her credit, as that's part of HIS pattern). |
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jun 27, 2007 7:45:53 GMT -5
Jamie beat Jane at Foxwoods on ESPN. The Judges were generous 98-92 x 2, 100-90. I had Jamie winning 96-94 with Couch coming on in the middle rounds before tiring at the end. Jamie threw 99 punches in round ten. Both ladies fought well, but Jamie built an early lead with a jump in, jump back stratagy. This confused Jane until round four when she finally began timing Jamie. Teddy Atlas may have put it best, the youth of Clampitt (30 to 38) topped the experience of Couch. Len, I did not see Couch-Clampitt #2, but I consider Couch to be a very light puncher, a square up fighter who pushes alot of punches. She had so much more heart than technical skill. Did she land any meanful shots? When you have 3 judges in agreement, it is almost meaningless as to how much in agreement they were or were NOT, the fact is evident, Couch clearly lost. I have yet to hear someone, anyone, from home or peanut gallery claim that Couch won or came close to winning. I've heard more comments to effect, clampitt should have been scored 10s in MORE rounds than she did. TD TD, Watch the fight. Teddy Atlas and Joe Tessitore disagreed with the official scoring and Bernie McCoy wrote two op-eds about it. Judge the fight yourself. JR |
|
|
|
Post by Ted Panagiotis on Jun 27, 2007 9:12:17 GMT -5
Yes but EVERY single person you just mentioned were all in agreement as to who the winner of the fight was.
|
|
|
|
Post by jr on Jun 27, 2007 9:46:53 GMT -5
Yes but EVERY single person you just mentioned were all in agreement as to who the winner of the fight was. I was addressing TD's comment "I've heard more comments to effect, Clampitt should have been scored 10s in MORE rounds than she did." Len scored the fight 96-94, McCoy 97-95, and Atlas 97-94. These scores are a long way from 98-92 and a light-year from 100-90. I'd like to hear how TD scores the contest. |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jun 27, 2007 17:25:14 GMT -5
JR,
I will score it when I get to see it. But I have to tell you, I see Jane as a pusher not a puncher. That doesn't mean she Pushed punches in this fight...and I score for effective agression. "Dancers" are usually IN-EFFECTIVE agression and deserve to lose rounds.
While I usually believe in Teddy's scoring I have seen him miss things from his ringside seat. Sure he has the TV monitor in front of him but the director is in his ear and his eyes are lured to the action in the ring and then back to the monitor. Tessitore is NOT an authority or an accurate scoring barometer. He usually parrots whatever Teddy says. Its not his job to score the fight, just call it.
If you hear when the fight will get replayed, let me know.
TD
Promoters still SLANT everything they can for their fighter. But they seldom "sign" a fighter for a multi-fight contract until the fighter has proven themselves as a "draw", meaning the fighter = money. "Money" always gets protected. The BEST GET ADVANTAGES THAT MAKE APPEAR BETTER. Ask Mia about that.( no, she is NOT the BEST) She revealed alot when she was negotiating to fight in Fresno.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jun 28, 2007 0:07:02 GMT -5
I have however noticed YOUR propensity for pouring cold water on the careers of successful Canadians - Jaime Clampitt, Jelena Mrdjenovich, Lisa Brown, Jessica Rakoczy - and especially on anyone who beats Mia! So I am wondering about your anti-Canadian attitude and where THAT comes from ;D Your conclusion about “successful Canadians” and “anyone who beats Mia” is incorrect. Clampitt, Mrdjenovich, Rakoczy, along with Holly Holm, benefit the most from the Promoter’s Advantage. That’s my common denominator for this list of boxers. Let's see now - 39 of the over 2700 female boxers currently listed on the WBAN records site are Canadians, but 3 of the 4 who "benefit most from the Promoter's Advantage" according to JR are Canadians. Hmmm .... Let's look at who beat Mia St. John since 2003 - Jessica Rakoczy UD8 in March 2004, Jessica Rakoczy TKO2 in February 2005 , Holly Holm UD10 in December 2005, Jelena Mrdjenovich UD10 in June 2006, Jaime Clampitt UD 10 in February 2007 and Brooke Dierdorff SD 6 in April 2007. No, that doesn't look like JR's "hit list" at all, does it? I must be imagining things. After all, Brooke Dierdorff wasn't even on his list of the four top boxers with a promoter's advantage - well, maybe that's because ALL the other four WERE and the list was only four boxers, so there was no room for a fifth. Did J.R. ever say anything about Brooke having an unfair advantage, I wonder? The press called Dierdorff a “novice” fighter. While her professional record consists of three wins and no loses with three TKOs against light competition, her amateur background includes Golden Gloves titles. Calling Dierdorff a novice is a gross misrepresentation of her record. ... Based on the scoring of this bout and the fights since her last victory (a TKO against the late Shelby Walker), St. John is unable to get honest scoring of her bouts. ... St. John is, in effect, a marked fighter and promoters, managers, and teams are employing every tactic and trick to defeat her. I doubt St. John can win by decision again. womenboxing.com/NEWS2007/news042307mia.htmBernie McCoy suggests a rematch between Mia St. John and Brooke Dierdorff. In my opinion, this would be a mistake for St. John. First, she won the first fight, unofficially. To rematch would be admitting to a loss. Second, a rematch would yield the same outcome. St. John does not have stopping power so the victory would be awarded by decision. And this would be an opportunity for another stolen victory. Mia St. John is too intelligent to accept a rematch. Remember this same promoter recruited Dierdorff as a replacement fighter when Rita Figueroa was injured in training. Nah, nothing there at all, so it must all be in my head. JR doesn't pick on successful Canadians or cast doubts on people who beat Mia St. John. What WAS I thinking? Silly me. |
|
It's pretty predictable, if you beat Mia, you get onto his hit list ... 
