posted Aug 12, 2008

Judges have always been biased. It all started in the olympics of 1908 in London, when GB won every title.

Everyone else has been getting their own back since.

In London 2012 Britain will probably win about 6 gold.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

This kind of nonsense needs stopped in it's tracks now. The beauty of the Olympics is the central aim to bring countries together for a fair competition, but with spiraling costs and the need to outdo the previous Olympics, they are in trouble of becoming the opposite of what was initially intended. Let's forget all the fireworks and big showpieces and concentrate on the games themselves. Less hype, less commercial.
....or just cut costs completly and compete on Wii Sports via dialup broadband.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

Was planning on getting up early this morning to watch BJ Saunders and Tony Jeffries, so last night I though I'd better check what Freeview stream in was going to be on, only to find it wasn't listed to be on any of the freeview streams.
So you can imagine my annoyance this morning when I woke up at 8am only to find that it had been on and I'd just missed both fights.

Come on BBC, keep up!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

This scouring system as always been shit from the start. No marks for commanding the ring or for landing theharder punches. Also the judges are all around the ring so some see the puch and some don't depending on the angle. To me this type of scoring as ruined amateur boxing. Body punches are rarely given a point. They need to get back to the old system but it won't happen . It as really put me of watching amateir boxing to be honest!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

Well the medal target set for boxing is 2 medals - I wonder if our boxers can achieve this now our best hope Frankie has departed?

The sport has had the lottery funding and support from English Institute of Sport - can they deliver?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

I am (as usual) confused.. Why do we have amateur boxers and no pros in the Olympics, but we have professional tennis players. Is there some reason? Does anybody know?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

Would be impossible to accomodate pros; firstly none of the big pros would fight without pay. Secondly, they would have to fight under amateur rules, otherwise couldn't have so many fights in such a short time, so would ruin their training for their pro career. Thirdly, they risk ruining their 'legacy' and their status as 'champion' in the pros, and thus fights they can get in the future. Two much politics, and two different sports.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

Amateur boxing scoring is very bizzare to say the least. Jeffries was very lucky to get that decision against the Columbian. Reminded me of the disgraceful decision against the great Roy Jones at the 1988 Seoul Olympics.

Idi Amin's advice to minority boxers if you don't KO your opponent
your very close to defeat...too damn right.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

i can honestly say i have never seen such shocking judges scoring as i have in this olympics. i can count on one hand the amount of body shots that have been given points. absolute crap. where do they find these guys????

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

People can bemoan the scoring all they like. The fact of the matter is, both the GB lads were beaten by better fighters. What on earth Saunders was up to is anyones guess. Classical Cuban counter punching. Makes you wish they could turn proffesional.

Imagine how good Kindellan could have been?

add comment | complain about this comment