INteresting Article: Bob Foster laughs off Monzon at 175

Uhhh gee. A fight goes 15 rounds and the hometown boy wins four rounds while the other ELEVEN get ruled even by the sole arbiter who also, two years earlier, protected another hometown boy (Sandro Mazzinghi) in another criminal decision. I wasnt born yesterday. Who the **** rules 11 rounds of a 15 rounder even? Nevermind, I'll answer that, the guy who is looking to NOT rule against one of the fighters.

If youve never seen a fight held in Denmark you wouldnt know what Im talking about. Ive seen enough of them to know they are more akin to professional wrestling than boxing with pre-arranged outcomes and nearly comical fixes. Yes I realize Tomser wasnt Danish but he also wasnt Italian and that didnt stop him from ruling a one sided ass kicking in Littles favor to a no contest in favor of Mazzinghi which caused universal outrage. So at best Tomser was completely incompetent and at worst he was a referee for hire to the highest bidder. Given his reputation at the time of the Bogs-Finnegan bout Id guess its the latter.

Lets also not forget that Bogs admitted to using amphetemines before the fight in order to give him a boost. He stated that they gave him confidence and made him feel invincible.

 

Right then... so on the basis of 11 rounds scored even, you have decided, that Finnegan was the victim of blatant robbery? Without having seen the fight? I'm sure you know, that while 11 even rounds in a 15-rounder sounds ridiculous today - it wasn't so strange back then. Today a judge must of course strive to find a winner of every round, but in European boxing 40-50 years ago, it was another story. Scoring the majority of the rounds even, wasn't unheard of, like for example:

Maurice Hope vs Frank Wissenbach in 1977, where one judge scored it 2-2-11. Hope was defending his EBU title in Germany... so I fail to see, how the score did the hometown boy any favours.

In 1972 Jose Legra went to Birmingham to defend his EBU title against Tommy Glencross, in a fight that saw one judge give it to Legra 3-1-11. Again, the 11 even rounds didn't really help the local guy.

And of course we have the famous case of Carmelo Bossi vs Jose Hernandez back in 1971! This was the one where the Italian went to Madrid to defend his world title against local boy Hernandez, and escaped with his crown intact thanks to a draw decision... in a fight that saw one of the judges hand in a 0-0-15 scorecard! Was the 15 even rounds a result of hometown scoring? If this particular judge wanted the Spaniard to win - don't you think he would have found just one round, he could have given to him?

No, all the even rounds back then was simply a result of how fights, in Europe, were scored during that time. Sure, it looks very strange today, but that's just how it was.

And yet, knowing all this, because of 11 even rounds in Bogs vs Finnegan, you have decided, that the Dane was the beneficiary of a criminal gift decision - in a fight you have never seen?

As for whether or not I have ever seen a fight in Denmark: I won't bore you with a list of the Tom Bogs fights I've seen... but I can assure you, it would be considerably longer than yours!

 

I actually have Bossi-Hernandez and it is a robbery, so nice comparison there.

But, your argument that I am wrong for surmising that this fight was a robbery given the facts because I havent seen the fight can work both ways. If you havent seen the fight, which you admit, how can you sit there and tell me that it was on the up and up when the winner admitted to using PEDs in the fight and the officiating referee had a history of protecting the local? Your argument that Europe had weak officials and shitty scoring does not make an 4-0-11 score a legitimate score.

Oh please, enlighten me as to what fights youve seen of Bogs. Id be interested in knowing. While you are at it, based on these fights, explain to me how anything Ive said about him is incorrect. Are you denying that he benefitted from a lot of a home cooking? Because even the Danes on here have admitted that. Are you denying what Ive said about his skill set? Because that can be readily parsed out by anyone who has seen his fights. Are you denying that Denmark has a history of ridiculously shady fights and hyped fighters with heavily padded records and fixes?

 

Did I admit to not seeing Bogs-Finnegan?? I thought, I said that you hadn't seen the fight... which I based on the fact, that he wasn't included in your list of Tom Bogs fights! Or have I misunderstood something?

The fights I have seen of Bogs? Well, it'll be easier to name those I haven't seen:

I have never seen, in person or on film, his fight with Pierre Fourie.
I have never seen, in person or on film, the one fight he had in Norway or any of the 6 he had in Sweden early in his career.
I never saw the NC against Carlos Marks, and I know, I also missed 3 or 4 of his early career fights here in Denmark... though I'm not quite sure which!

Every other fight of his I saw in person, from ringside (or a few rows back) - except Duran II and the Conteh fight, which I saw on TV.

With regards to what you have to say about Bogs and Danish boxing in general - I agree 100%! This may come as a surprise to you, but as a Dane who has followed boxing in my country for more than half a century, I'm painfully aware, of what has been going on here since the early 60's! Remember the thread on another site (where I post as "Bundana"), where you (rightly!) claimed, that Bogs had benefitted from hometown judging? Did I disagree with you then?... no, I actually came up with several fights you didn't even mention, where I thought Bogs was unfairly declared the winner. And if I thought Finnegan deserved the win against Bogs, I would not hesitate to say so - but the fact is, that he didn't! And not a single reporter, Danish or foreign, thought he did. Here's how Peter Wilson from "Daily Mirror" saw the fight (translatede from Danish):

I gave Tom Bogs 8 rounds, Finnegan 3, with 4 rounds even. The Dane was in a different class, and the way he dominated in the first 4 rounds, I kind of expected him to win inside the distance. But after that Finnegan put in a great effort and even took the initiative midway through the fight. In the late rounds I was impressed by Bogs' ability - and Finnegan's heart.

And even Finnegan couldn't bring himself to say, that he should have won:

I loved every bloody blow he gave me! He beat me all right, but I earned much more than just my purse. In every round I gained valuable experience. Give me 10 more fights like this, and I will be the one who is champion.

I don't really see how all this translate into a "criminal gift decision", but knowing what you know about Danish boxing, and looking at that strange 4-0-11 scorecard... I take it, you simply guessed, that this probably wasn't on the up and up.

As I said, I have no beef with your opinion of Bogs or Danish boxing... but I just had to correct you on this one!

 

From Finnegan's biography, Self-Portrait of a Fighting Man:

"There wasn't all that much in it at the end, and if it hadn't been for the scoring of the diabolical kraut referee, Herbert Tromser, I reckon I would have made it. Tomser scored four rounds for Bogs, eleven level, and fukk all for me."

 

Thats not true as beergut pointed out. Tomser was a piece of ****. Bogs did admit cheating in that fight. And whether there is a precedent for shitty officiating in Europe or not 4-0-11 is a terrible and suspect card.

BUT, lets say this fight went down lilly white and there was nothing wrong with the decision. Lets just pretend that Tomser wasnt inept or corrupt and that Bogs didnt take amphetemines before the fight. Is this really the fight you want to hang Bogs reputation on? An EBU defense against a guy with a 13-1 record who wasnt even rated (I checked) who had only been ten rounds once and never fought abroad? Is it really a positive thing to say that the nearly 60 fight veteran who was rated #1 at the time was held even in 11 rounds? Even if the decision was legit it still illustrates my point more than any of Bogs' supporters. What the hell was the #1 middleweight doing struggling in 11 rounds with a guy that hadnt cracked out of the club fighter status yet? Im supposed to believe this guy could beat Bob Foster? That he was world championship calibre? That the only reason he lost his big fights was because Al Silvani was training him? GTFO.

 

I don't understand this post!

"Is this really the fight you want to hang Bogs reputation on?", you a ask. What on earth are you talking about? When did I ever say anything like that, or claim he was world championship calibre, or that he could beat Foster, or that he wasn't a drugs cheater, or that Silvani ruined him? I have never said any of those things. Did you not read my post? And if you did - did you not notice, that I'm actually in complete agreement with your assessment of Bogs/Danish boxing?

The only thing I'm commenting on is your description of the verdict handed down in the Bogs-Finnegan fight as a "criminal gift decision"... which doesn't come even close to the truth!

 

Whatever, if you want to believe that fight had 11 rounds even you go ahead and believe that.

You might as well also believe that Freddie Little didnt absolutely kick the living **** out of Mazzinghi only for the referee to protect Mazzinghi's title by calling the bout a no contest. His reasoning was that under EBU rules, which the fight wasnt being fought under, state that a fight ending on a cut before the mid point of the 8th round can be ruled a no contest. The problem was that as stated above the fight wasnt being fought under EBU rules and ended AFTER the 8th round, not before the midway point. Even the Italian press called the decision "scandalous." They were a bit more discerning the Danish press apparently.

But let me get this straight. Are you saying you saw the Finnegan fight? Because I noticed you edited the post where you initially said you hadnt seen it and thats gone now...

 

What the f**k are you going on about? Why the **ll wouldn't I believe that Freddie Little kicked the **** out Mazzinghi? I remember very well the uproar after that fight. What in heaven's name are you talking about?

And now you're accusing me of lying! WTF!! I never said, I haven't seen Bogs-Finnegan. Why on earth would I say that? I'm supposed to have initially said that, and later edited it away? Man, you're crazy and lying through your teeth - and you know it!

Ok, maybe I was naive in thinking, that I could convince someone as arrogant and full of himself as you, that he had made a mistake - but I honestly hadn't thought it would come to a point, where I would be called a lier! And if that's your way of debating, I have no interest in talking to you any longer.

 

Why wont you answer my questions?

Are you going to sit there and pretend that a 4-0-11 card is acceptable? Are you going to pretend thats a legitimate card? 4-0-11? Come on man. Dont sit there and tell me you were ringside for the fight and that this is an acceptable score and then have to quote British sources for the fight after youve already posted "not saying that Ive seen it but..." If its arrogant to think that a fight where the winner was on his home turf, admitted to doping before hand, and had a completely ****ed up scorecard by a known hack/crook referee in favor of the hometown boy is a shady fight then yeah, Im arrogant. Are you going to tell me there was nothing wrong with that fight? You mean to pretend that a 15 round fight where the referee scored 11 rounds even that you couldnt give some of those to Finnegan? And then to use a fight like the Hernandez-Bossi fight, which you havent seen and I have as an example of how a ****ed up card can be legitimate (when that card was bad too) well... Pardon me if I sound arrogant when talking to you. So Im glad you agree with everything else I say 100% but find fault with this ONE description I have of this fight. If you actually saw it, and you thought Bogs did indeed manage to edge out this 14 fight veteran just say so. Thats you opinion and thats fine. But dont sit here and try to make a case for a horrendous scorecard like that and tell me it doesnt give the impression of impropriety. Particularly in light of the official who rendered it and the already murky circumstances that Bogs himself admitted to! My point was and remains that Bogs is overrated particularly by Danes and by Monzon fans. He benefitted from some shitty decisions and his rating was unwarranted. He had limited ability and limited technique and when he stepped up on the level he lost, usually in one sided fashion. Furthermore anyone who thinks Bogs at any time, much less 4 years retired, would have beaten Foster, or did better against Monzon than Foster would have, is drinking the Kool Aide.

 

I'm going to answer this - against my better judgement, as you no doubt will reply by throwing more BS in my face!


Are you going to sit there and pretend that a 4-0-11 card is acceptable? Are you going to pretend thats a legitimate card? 4-0-11? Come on man.
Did I ever say, that was an acceptable card? Obviously it's a silly interpretation of a fight! Why do you want to give the impression, that I think that's an ok score?

You mean to pretend that a 15 round fight where the referee scored 11 rounds even that you couldnt give some of those to Finnegan?
No I'm not going to pretend that! I've never said anything like that! Why do you imply that I have? I don't get it!

And then to use a fight like the Hernandez-Bossi fight, which you havent seen and I have as an example of how a ****ed up card can be legitimate.
Jesus Christ - why do you think I brought up that fight? Could it be that:
A - I wanted to show it was perfectly fine to score the majority (or in this case all!) of the rounds even, or...
B - I used it as the ultimate example of just how ****ed up a scorecard could look back then.
Why do you want to imply that A is the answer? Deep down you must know, that isn't true. Seriously man, what is wrong with you?

But dont sit here and try to make a case for a horrendous scorecard like that and tell me it doesnt give the impression of impropriety.
Did you not read where I said: "Knowing what you know about Danish boxing, and looking at that strange 4-0-11 scorecard... I take it, you simply guessed, that this probably wasn't on the up and up".
What do you think I'm saying here? Do you think I mean:
A - That card is right on the money, and everything looks just fine, or...
B - Taking into account, that you obviously know quite a lot about Danish boxing, coupled with a weird scorecard like that - you could have reason to think, this might have been a hometown verdict.
Again, why on earth do you want to give the impression, that I'm trying to make a case for a scorecard like that?

He benefitted from some shitty decisions and his rating was unwarranted.
Why do you think I said: "I'm painfully aware, of what has been going on here since the early 60's!". Do you think I said that because:
A - I'm hurting somewhere, or...
B - I've often had a very bad taste in my mouth, when I have witnessed the things, that have been going down here over the past 50 years.
So you don't have to convince me about shitty Danish hometown decisions. As I've said before, even though you have some very harsh words for Danish boxing... I can't, in all honesty, disagree with you!

And, as I have also said before, the only thing I disagree with, is your claim that the Bogs-Finnegan ended in a "criminal gift decision". That doesn't mean, I think the scorecard was fine, or that Herbert Tomser wouldn't have "saved" Tom, if Finnegan had given him a licking. The point is, that in this case it wasn't necessary to save the hometown hero - as Bogs actually turned out to be the better man. And no, that doesn't mean I'm defending a 4-0-11 card, or that I thought Finnegan didn't win a single round. Let me say this once more, so even you can understand it: I don't think it's right to score a fight 4-0-11 (let alone 0-0-15!)... so don't come back here with some BS, about what Thomser did in another fight, and pretend that I'm somehow endorsing what he did in that fight - and therefore must be a fan of silly scorecards! Jesus ****ing Christ!

The bottom line is, that no matter what crooked intentions Tomser may have had going in, and how silly his scorecard was... in the end the win was awarded to the right man! That doesn't mean Finnegan didn't have his share of success - because he did. I remember the fight as being competetive and very hard-fought (yes, I did see the fight, and never claimed otherwise) with Bogs being a close but clear winner. In no way, shape or form could this be seen as a "criminal gift decision"... and don't try and make this look like I'm somehow a Tomser fan, and that I don't believe we could have seen a criminal decision (if Finnegan had turned out to be the better man). Of course we could - but that simply wasn't the case this time.

I don't know, what more I can say. I have tried to present my honest opinion, but I'm sure nothing of this will matter to you. You will undoubtedly find some way to dismiss everything I've said, as being nothing but lies... so you can stand by your original statement of a "criminal gift decision". I'm perfectly aware, that we'll never see the day, where the infallible, know-it-all Klompton admits to even the slightest mistake!

 

So if you agree with me on every point what were you initially arguing about and coming on here with this false indignation at my characterization of the fight?

 

Are you sure, you're not mistaking me for that other Danish guy, you were debating in the first couple of pages of this thread? You know, about whether or not a 34-year-old Tom Bogs would have beaten 40-year-old Bob Foster, etc.? That wasn't me! My first post in this thread was #45, and I have never argued about anything but the Bogs-Finnegan decision. So I'm not sure, what you mean in this post.

 

this point about even rounds is an interesting point.

11 even rounds in a 15 round fight seems strange, but maybe (assuming the card was scored properly), it might just be a better system?

Is it really fair that a fighter gets scored a point for a round, when for all intensive purposes, there is barely anything in it and if you asked 10 people (without commentary of course) who should win the round, only 7 might agree while 3 might have it the other way. In these circumstances, maybe just maybe it might be appropriate to score more rounds as a draw.

For arguments sake, a clear knock down would secure a round. Or a totally dominant round with a near knock down. But a round where one fighter steals the round with a late burst or where neither fighter does any real damage wouldnt score around. Yes it would mean closer fights scoring wise and probably more out and out draws but surely it would mean less controversy and possibly even force some fighters to up the ante.

 

Klompton, although you area wealth of knowledge (I'm enjoying your book on Greb) In this case you are being argumentative.

All the guy is taking issue with is the term 'criminally gift decision' which sounds as though Bogs got his ass handed to him.

It is possible to score 11 even rounds,albeit unlikely, but still possible. Without having seen the fight there is no way to be sure. Maybe there were a few close rounds and the later rounds when compared just seemed too hard to pick. Maybe the fight should have been 5-1.

The amphetamines has nothing to do with the judging of the fight.

What we do know is that Bogs would almost certainly have ktfo Bogs at any point when they were both fighting. Falling off the cliff of age is not uncommon so certainty is diminished when we talk about retired fighters. But if we extrapolate and assume that like most boxers that power is the last thing they lose, Foster would land the left hook on his smaller opponent and that would be the end.

Interesting thread.