Johnny Nelson says burns result is ruining boxing

Hey I’m Scottish and fair so lets do a quick summery,

1 Ricky is a hell of a nice guy.
2 Beltran was robbed, it’s not even open for debate really.
3 Billy is a bit mouthy & biased (which is understandable) but does give good corner advice at times
4 The whole thing stinks to high hell.
5 Whenever someone gets straight to the point they get called a troll, which is a total cop out
6 Rockymarshmello (though coarse) is right.
7 115 - 113 Burns? lol wtf?? The fix was in.
8 This and all the aphabet soup organisations are what is killing boxing

Anyone saying otherwise is either a cretin, biased or deluded.

 

nice to see you getting your insults in early doors.saves a lot of messing aboot eh big man?

 

No, I live in South London, and my roots are Berkshire...

 

Hmm dont' just focus on the negatives, I think that overall my post was a pretty fair assessment.

 

Scoring the fight, giving the champion (Burns) the benefit of the doubt, it's hard to make it closer than 115-112. It certainly was more one sided than that score suggests, just due to the the way the rounds were won and how boxing is scored. As we all know boxing isn't always about winning the ''fight'', but instead winning the ''match'', if you get what I mean.

No denying Beltram won the ''fight'' though, and won the ''match'' too, although not by as big a margin.

 

yeah it is a decent assessment to be fair but its been done to death..

i am not sure how you can call a judge out for a bad decision though as its a humans opinion??the score stunk but it may well have been their opinions?
there is somebody on the cotto v mayweather thread that thought cotto won and that was as 1 sided as the burns v beltran fight..i dont really have a solution do you?

 

Yes, ban any judge who does stuff like this for at least two years.
This fight wasnt even close, Ricky was backed up all night, dropped and bullied, the judge who scored it for Burns is corrupt.

Once they realise they wont be getting their 'perks' of the job for 24 months they will soon start seeing fights clearly.

 

Jon can you also tell the goons on here that I am without a shadow of doubt not that fvcking muppet Craney that they keep talking about. Cheers.

How's things Jon ? Ya know I didn't mean all that **** about ripping Jocks.. haha Just on a wind up on here skiddo !!

 

You honestly believe that do ya... even with the guy who scored it 115-112 for Burns.

Not very fvcking bright are you sunshine. :rofl

 

Cotto/Mayweather was a close(ish) fight, this fight had a judge who was on the same level as Eugenia Williams.

These people must get bans.

 

Rocky aint Crainey guys, he's been a well known poster from the boards from years.


@ Rocky I know you are at the wind up about jocks but not the fight.

I think everyone what deep down knows what went on that night it's Beltran im gutted for, the guy fought a very good fight, bust his nads and should have been champ.

It's just wrong that people try to hide behind the whole "oh it was close" it wasn't close it was a runaway victory stolen from a deserved winner.

"Human error" my ass it was corrupt.:?

 

Well ya great nan must of been bummed off one and it's rubbed off on ya cos ya chatting shite kid talking about Johnny Nelson being boring is on par or worse than that blatant robbery the other night.

Get boring fights all the time, if Nelson is ruining boxing then so is Hopkins, Wlad and sometimes Floyd.

 

Yep, if you're a judge i.e. someone who gets paid to judge fights and you are scoring that fight for Burns by 3 rounds.

Then sorry it's got absolutely fvck all about scoring being subjective, the fix is in.... end of story. You know it, I know it, every fvcker knows the fix was in with those scores to say otherwise means you're biased or just full of ****.

So I totally agree.

 

what i cant understand is why not just make it by 1 round???there was no way it was even a draw that judge was mental too ...why 3 rounds?its too obvious ..


just watched ringside he gave burns 6 outta first 7 rounds.

 

Well,I saw most of his fights and can't think which one,although there was one man he beat who he really shouldn't have,according to form.Im not saying there wasn't corruption in those days,just that there didn't seem to be so many bad decisions over here.One of the worst I ever saw was Howard Winstone vs Don Johnson.If anything,Winstone won more clearly than did Beltran,but didn't get the decision.I actually thought 3 judges would be fairer,but its turned out not to be the case.Befuddled by it all really.