How's that US writers always find a way to cover up such a disgrace?

80% of Eastsideboxing has Kotelnik beating Alexander, most by a wide margin, such highly respected independent experts as Dwyer from the US call it a robbery, there's an outrage on the message boards, yet if you didn't see the fight and only got your input from the media, you wouldn't even know it was at least a questionable decision when it is universally recognized as a clear robbery.

I was and still am a Devon Alexander fan. Everybody loves his story: an excellent, respectful, dedicated young kid working all his way up from the lowest streets to the highest paydays, overcoming obstacles, setbacks and tragedies, working harder than 99.9% of us. Making the impossible possible, the self-made man's Cinderella story, making the American Dream come true. But that is hardly an excuse to ignore a sport event and it's clear objective judging rules and let personal sympathy, nationalistic values or network interest to take over, and many of us strongly believe that is what the US media is doing by completely ignoring the controversy.

Fact is that Kotelnik landed the more punches, the more meaningful punches, the cleaner punches and landed at a higher % vs. the busy but largely ineffective Alexander, Harold Lederman however argues that Devon simply was busier therefore had him winning the fight with an atrocious 117-111 score. Many fans actually had the same score, just the other way around, and it's hard to find those who even through the biased commentary, believe Alexander deserved the nod. Should they rewatch the fight without sound, will they still back the St. Louis decision? Now let's see how the media, who's job is to objectively report what really happened, saw the fight!


Dan Rafael, ESPN: "Toughing it out"
"It wasn't always pretty and it definitely wasn't easy, but Devon Alexander managed to retain his titles by outpointing Andreas Kotelnik over 12 rounds"
- but is Alexander "toughing out" an expert opinion and an unbiased take on the fight?


Assosiated press via Yahoo! "Knock of that rally"
"Devon Alexander withstood Andriy Kotelnik to win by unanimous decision and retain both of his titles"
- he certainly withstood from not going down, but is it the accurate description of what happened over 12 rounds?


Jake Donovan, rival site "Devon Alexander outlasts Kotelnik"
Donovan says Alexander overcame a cut and the determination of a former champion.
- but did he really overcome in terms of unbiased scoring?


Brian Grammer, Fightnews: "Alexander defeats Kotelnik"
"Undefeated WBC/IBF junior welterweight champ Devon Alexander won a harder then expected twelve round unanimous decision over former WBA champion Andriy Kotelnik."
- Was it simply just harder than expected?


Doug Fischer, The Ring: "Still work in progress"
"Devon Alexander got the job done against crafty Andreas Kotelnik on Saturday night in his hometown of St. Louis, winning a unanimous decision, but he didn't look like the star so many expect him to become."
- did he really get the job done in terms of a fair decision?


Peter Owen Nelson, New York Times "Alexander Defeats Kotelnik, Retains titles"
"Sharon Alexander celebrated her 54th birthday Saturday with a gift from her son Devon Alexander: a hometown victory over Andriy Kotelnik of Lviv, Ukraine. Alexander’s speed proved too much for Kotelnik as he won a unanimous decision at Scottrade Center."
- did Alexander's speed really proved too much? It is certainly not intentional, but maybe Nelson talking about "gift" and "hometown victory" is the most accurate description I've read so far



You tell me after watching and possibly rewatching the fight: are these descriptions accurate and don't you feel they left out just a tiny bit of information? Or even better: if Kotelnik was the US fighter Alexander the visitor, would the headlines be the same?