Comments Thread For: WBO Confirms Plan To Review Abraham-Smith Outcome

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

The WBO have confirmed that they are reviewing Saturday night's fight between WBO Super middleweight titlist Arthur Abraham and challenger Paul Smith before making a decision over a potential rematch. Smith fought a good fight in Kiel, Germany—and what many believed was a close, albeit losing, one—only to lose by scores of 117-110, 119-109 and 117-111 from Waleska Roldan, Fernando Laguna and Zoltan Enyedi respectively.

Some fans had Smith winning, many more had Abraham nicking the decision, but the wide scorecards stole the focus away from the fight itself and placed it firmly on the perceived infirmity of the judging minds, especially the extremely wide scorecard of Laguna. [Click Here To Read More]

[786]

Close but clear win for Abraham. Decent fight, wouldn't mind seeing a rematch which I think would be easier for Abraham.

[removed]

Smith won that fight. Boxing rounds last for 3 minutes, not 30 seconds.

Blatant robbery.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

The scoring was the issue.

It was a close fight that could have gone either way. Not a robbery. There have been far worse decisions.

[HEND]

Media scores: 30 for Abraham, 9 for Smith. That tells everything about this robbery whining.
I care more about decisionss when the wrong man win cause the biased/corrupt refs. If the right man won with too wide margin on the cards that doesn't exicte me that much, cause at the end of the day the right man won, and that's the most important. Sure it's always bad for the sport when the decision is too wide but this is way too much complaining and comedy for a fight where at least the right man won. Hearn should STFU and get over it. He didn't bitch about Beltran-Burns. I'm wondering why...

[786]

The scoring was the issue.

It was a close fight that could have gone either way. Not a robbery. There have been far worse decisions.

Well said. It was by no means a robbery, the problem was how wide the judges had it.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Media scores: 30 for Abraham, 9 for Smith. That tells everything about this robbery whining.
I care more about decisionss when the wrong man win cause the biased/corrupt refs. If the right man won with too wide margin on the cards that doesn't exicte me that much, cause at the end of the day the right man won, and that's the most important. Sure it'salways bad for the sport when the decision is too wide but this is way too much cmplaining and comedy for a fight when atleast the right man won. Hearn should STFU and get over it. He didn't bitch about Beltran-Burns. I'm wondering why...

What does Burns-Beltran have to do with this fight? Hearn has said he felt Beltran should have won. Kalle Sauerland is trying to deny there was a problem with the scoring.

No one is saying that it's a robbery in that Smith clearly won. The issue is with the scoring. Smith was not going to be given a fair crack of the whip regardless of how the fight went. Even if he'd put Abraham on his arse a couple of times, he'd have still lost on the cards which is ridiculous.

[techliam]

Media scores: 30 for Abraham, 9 for Smith. That tells everything about this robbery whining.
I care more about decisionss when the wrong man win cause the biased/corrupt refs. If the right man won with too wide margin on the cards that doesn't exicte me that much, cause at the end of the day the right man won, and that's the most important. Sure it'salways bad for the sport when the decision is too wide but this is way too much cmplaining and comedy for a fight when atleast the right man won. Hearn should STFU and get over it. He didn't bitch about Beltran-Burns. I'm wondering why...

No it doesn't really, how many had it a draw?

The issue is the scoring. Those scores are absolutely pathetic. The WBO can't reverse a decision anyway, we know this. I fail to see what they expect the WBO to do here, but we'll see how it goes

[HEND]

What does Burns-Beltran have to do with this fight? Hearn has said he felt Beltran should have won. Kalle Sauerland is trying to deny there was a problem with the scoring.

No one is saying that it's a robbery in that Smith clearly won. The issue is with the scoring. Smith was not going to be given a fair crack of the whip regardless of how the fight went. Even if he'd put Abraham on his arse a couple of times, he'd have still lost on the cards which is ridiculous.

But do you think only because the wide margin they shoul order the rematch of a fight when Abraham could win 116-112 or 115-113 on the scorecards normalwise, without unbiased refs? Because that's what they want. On one hand the deicision was too wide, yes, on the other hand that shouldn't mean that Smith has to be mandatory again cause his losswaslegit, only the margin wasn't. He got beat by Abraham so if they want to justifie this then ban the 119-109 referee, that's okay but don't make/want a rematch for a fight where anyway Abraham won legitimally.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

But do you think only because the wide margin they shoul order the rematch of a fight when Abraham could win 116-112 or 115-113 on the scorecards normalwise, without unbiased refs? Because that's what they want. On one hand the deicision was too wide, yes, on the other hand that shouldn't mean that Smith has to be mandatory again cause his losswaslegit, only the margin wasn't. He got beat by Abraham so if they want to justifie this then ban the 119-109 referee, that's okay but don't make/want a rematch for a fight where anyway Abraham won legitimally.

I don't really care if they rematch or not in all honesty. I just think its a poor attitude to have to say because of what happened with Burns-Beltran, Eddie Hearn shouldn't complain about the scoring.

There have been far worse decisions - this fight could have gone either way or been a draw. Doesn't make the scoring any less atrocious and hopefully something is done about it.