INteresting Article: Bob Foster laughs off Monzon at 175

I dont know how Im the one being argumentative. The guy admits that he agrees with everything I said but takes issue with how I characterized the scoring of the fight criminal even though he admits that it is an unacceptable card by an official who was known for rendering one of the worst decisions of the era. Essentially hes saying that Im wrong for characterizing a bad decision as a bad decision because he THINKS the right guy won despite the decision being bad. Thats fine but thats just his opinion. It doesnt make anything that I said incorrect.

As far as the amphetamines go the point is that as with the officiating the deck was stacked in Denmark against Finnegan (despite being a percieved easy opponent) like it often was/is.

I stand by what I said about Bogs, that fight, and Danish boxing in general. I have nothing against Danes and find most of them to be extremely nice and generous people so Im sorry if they find my comments insulting or inflammatory but in regards to boxing I stand by what Ive said.

 

I've already stated, quite clearly, that I agree with your characterization of Danish boxing. You have (in other threads) sited numerous cases of hometown decisions - and worse! I have actually lived Danish boxing for 50 years - and, believe me, you have only scratched the surface! I have seen stuff, that sometimes have made me think about giving up on boxing altogether. So I don't have to "admit" to anything - I'm agreeing with you! I don't know, how many times I have to say this, before you get it!

However, all the shady things that have been going on in Danish boxing over the the past 50 years have nothing to do with the Bogs-Finnegan verdict. Nor has the fact that Tom Bogs admitted to have been drugged, or that he never would have beaten Bob Foster - which you for some reason drag into the argument, even though I have never once commented on such a fight. So why do you even mention such a fight - if not to create the false impression, that I'm some naive Dane, who actually thinks Bogs would have beaten Foster? Do you think this is a fair way to debate?

You have also made som absurd claims, about how I think a fight should be scored. Like when I mentioned the 0-0-15 card in the Bossi-Hernandez fight. Now I would think, that any semi- intelligent person could see, that I was using that as an extreme example of just how ridiculous a card could look back then. But for some reason you tried to make it look, like i was defending such cards. You can not possibly think, that that's how I really feel - but again, it was of course just another attempt to ridicule me, and thereby show I have no credibility, and that my opinions shouldn't be taken seriously. I can se no other explanation.

I don't know, how you define a "criminal gift decision". I would say, it's when one fighter beats the crap out of another fighter - only to see the other fighter get the decision. So Bogs is scored the winner 4-0-11, in a tough, close fight that everbody agrees, he won fair and square. That is of course a very bad scorecard - so you could say, that the decision (the way it was scored) is very bad. But does it mean, Bogs was the recipient of a "criminal gift decision? I don't think so - but I suppose you will argue, that it does.

Anyway, this is getting a bit too ridiculous for me. I've tried to argue my case as forthright and honestly as I can. I've even said, that given the scorecard, which I agree looks highly suspect, I can actually understand, why you concluded this must have been a hometown robbery. That is my honest opinion, which is why I thought, I should mention that. Credit where credit is due. I'm not here to put anyone down or ridicule anyone, and I think I've presented my case in a fair way.

You, on the other hand, have - in every post - done nothing but talk about everything else than the verdict itself, and tried to make me look like a complete moron, with no credibility. But then again, I know how important it is for you to win every argument - so I can't really say, I'm surprised.

But let's wrap this up because, honestly, it's not fun anymore. I've told you, that every paper and journalist present though Bogs won fair and square. But I guess this means nothing to you. You probably don't care about what the British weekly Boxing News thought about the fight either, but I thought I'd mention it anyway:

Boxing News September 4th 1970: " Although Bogs deserved to win it was desperately close and the champion needed all his magnificent strength to pull the fight his way "

I don't think, this sounds like they thought Finnegan got robbed - but of course you wouldn't give a rat's ass about what I think, and will no doubt maintain that Bogs was awarded a "criminal gift decision".

Whatever...

 

A criminal gift decision would be one that the verdict was predetermined before the fight had ever been made. That ridiculous card turned in by the ludicrously biased referee illustrates just that and its something that he was already well known for. So yes, I stick by what I said. As I said before, it makes no difference whether you think Bogs won. It makes no difference whether the fight was characterized as "desperately close" because a desperately close fight with 11 rounds even and absolutely none awarded to the challenger in a 15 round bouts means that if you have 11 rounds even but were forced to choose a winner in those 11 rounds then conceivably all 11 of those "razor thin" rounds could go to Finnegan. It could also mean all 11 rounds could go to Bogs. Would either of those decisions be just? No, but a case could be made for them based on that joke of a card. I say again, that you are essentially saying that the card doesnt matter because the right guy won. What you are tip toeing around but we both know is that Tomser was brought in specifically to award a decision in Bogs favor. Period. Had Finnegan won every round of that bout we both know he would have gotten no better than a draw. So yes, the decision was gift and a joke. I could care less if Bogs just barely, but deservedly, defeated a guy with only a dozen fights who wasnt even ranked in the European rankings and who didnt deserve a shot at the EBU and against whom he felt the need to use PEDs (yes, he was taking PEDs, he was not "drugged" as you phrase it) in a fight that he couldnt have lost had he dropped dead of a heart attack in the first round. How that decision, like many of his and other fights in Denmark, was reached is the point. I think Oscar De La Hoya deserved to lose his fight with Trinidad. That doesnt prevent me from admitting that the decision was a forgone conclusion before either entered the ring via Don King.

 

Brian Nielson kicked the **** out of Larry Holmes.

 

Alan Vester knocked Emmanuel Augustus' block off.

 

Les Darcy knocked Fred Fulton's block off yep