Open Scoring in Boxing: Yes or No? Part Two of a TSS Survey

Published

7 years ago

October 3, 2018

Ted Sares

(PART TWO: M-W): We asked 48 noted boxing buffs how they felt about open scoring. Specifically we asked, “Are you in favor of open scoring whereby the scores of the judges would be revealed after each round or at one or more intervals during the fight? If so, why? If not, why not?”

The respondents are listed alphabetically. Part One (A-L) ran yesterday (Tuesday, Oct. 2). Here’s the concluding segment. A hearty thanks to all that took the time to share their thoughts.

ADEYINKA MAKINDE—U.K. barrister, writer and contributor to the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Boxing. Open scoring would detract from the drama of what the final decision will be should the fight endure to the allocated distance. So entertainment wise, it is not of particular value. Neither is its value enhanced in so far as the notion that it might improve the quality of judging. After all, the idea surely is not to put pressure on a judge whose scoring appears off base to a section of the crowd, or to substitute judges mid-fight for “getting things wrong.” This is a non-issue. Instead the focus should be on determining the professional competence of judges as well as their integrity.

JOHN McKALE–prominent boxing judge: No, 100% not in favor. The mind through the eyes of each judge should not be compromised by anything, including what the other judges may be determining.

PAUL MAGNO–author, writer and boxing official in Mexico: I don’t like open scoring. It does absolutely nothing to help the integrity of judging, but it ruins some key elements of intrigue and suspense when it comes to the fight and the announcing of a winner. If boxing is serious about judging reform, then they need to do the only thing that matters– overhaul the entire incestuous system and create more of a separation between the promoters and the selection of officials.

SCOOP MALINOWSKI—boxing writer, author, “Mr. Biofile”: Open scoring is just another system that can be corrupted and surely will be corrupted. I’d rather see former pro boxers and champions in the role as judges, but they can be corrupted too.

LARRY MERCHANT—HBO boxing commentator emeritus; 2009 IBHOF inductee: I’m opposed to open scoring because I witnessed a couple of such experiments that fell flat. Either the winning fighter, knowing the score, coasted through the late rounds and/or the losing fighter failed to respond, accepting defeat. The drama of uncertainty works best in prize fighting.

ROBERT MLADINICH — former NYPD police detective, author and boxing writer: I am not in favor of open scoring because awaiting a close decision is much of the fun of a good, close fight. Unfortunately the judges often get it wrong, which ruins the entire experience. That does not justify the open scoring. There should just be better judges.

HARRY OTTY—author, historian, part-time boxing coach: Absolutely in favor of ‘open scoring.’ How many close fights may have had a different result if the corner that felt they were ahead knew, without doubt, that they were actually behind with a couple of rounds left in the fight? I have coached amateur boxers for over 30 years and the closed scoring sucks – corruption is also rife. The best period we had was when the computer scoring (a button-push for each punch landed – not an ideal set up) was revealed at the end of each round. If you lost the first of three you at least had the option to alter tactics. Boxers/coaches who can adapt to what is happening as a result of the known score would also be proving their skill/superiority in the ring. TACTICS! From an open and transparent perspective it may have the side effect of making all judges (promoters/governing bodies) more accountable.

MARY ANN LURIE OWEN–boxing photojournalist extraordinaire: In 12-round title fights, scores should be announced after the 4th and 8th rounds.

JOE PASQUALE – prominent judge and recent NJ Boxing Hall of Fame inductee: As a fan, my thoughts are that this is the one sport that holds the suspense of the outcome until the third judge’s score is read by the ring announcer. Also, I have worked a few of these score progressions announced throughout the fight. The fighter with the big lead going into the later rounds just stopped engaging and coasted the last few rounds, taking the edge off a good fight with the possibility of a stoppage going into that tough 12th round.

DAVID PAYNE—U.K. boxing writer: I’m not in favor. Open scoring impacts intent of fighters and crowd reaction impacts officials.

J. RUSSELL PELTZ—venerable Philadelphia boxing promoter and 2004 IBHOF inductee: Terrible idea. A boxer with a big lead avoids contact down the stretch. Takes away suspense. Better solution is to get better judges.

ADAM POLLACK–author, publisher, and boxing official: There are pros and cons. The pro is it would allow the fighter who was behind to make adjustments and potentially fight harder, because it would make him realize that what he was doing was not as effective in the judges’ minds as he thought it was. On the other hand, it can allow one fighter to coast if he realizes he is well ahead, which can cause fights to become boring, and it eliminates the drama. When neither knows whether or not they are ahead, they fight harder, fearing the unknown. But what boxing really should do is stop using incompetent judges, and bring back the 15-round championship fight. Open scoring simply shows the fighters and the world how terrible the judging is as it is happening. It doesn’t change the fact of bad judging.

BRIAN POWERS–former fighter: Show them so the fighter knows and can turn it up if he’s behind.

JACQUIE RICHARDSON–Executive Director, Retired Boxers Foundation: I fail to see what difference that would make. Good judges will be good judges and bad judges will remain bad judges. The only positive outcome would be if the corners know, and the boxers come out and make adjustments to more convincingly win rounds. Another positive thing would be to see if the judges know what ring generalship is and the real difference between power shots and pity-pats.

CLIFF ROLD—boxing writer; founding member of the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board: I’m not in favor of open scoring of any kind/time. I think it changes the approach of fighters and those with leads have an impetus to disengage. That’s bad for the entertainment factor. The second Bell-Mormeck fight at cruiserweight soured me on it. It went from eight rounds of all-out war to a chase scene.

FREDERICK ROMANO–former ESPN researcher and author: My general feeling is I don’t believe it is necessary. It cuts both ways. Knowing a fight is dead even going into the last round could lead to some supreme efforts. It also might result in over-caution. However, I would like to hear from the fighters themselves as to whether they are in favor of it. Would they find it beneficial from a strategic standpoint? If they do, maybe we need to depart from tradition. I think what might be more important is that we improve the quality of judging. With quality judging the need for open scoring is mitigated. Also, using five judges for championship bouts might be helpful to reduce the potential impact of corruption and would overcome even two poor scorecards, saving some bouts from the wrong result.

DANA ROSENBLATT–former world middleweight champion; inspirational speaker: I am not in favor of open scoring. Although potential corruption is shrouded in part by allowing scoring to be done in a way that no one knows until the fight is over, I am not in favor of it. Instead, how about mandating that judges for all boxing matches are selected exclusively by the state boxing commissions of the states where the matches take place and not the promoters? I think this would make a difference.

LEE SAMUELS–veteran Top Rank publicist: We wouldn’t change it. There is always suspense how a fight is being scored. And in today’s world of Twitter, the top ringside writers tweet how they are scoring – that is good enough for me and for the fans who are watching.

TED SARES–TSS writer: In general, I dislike the concept but I’d be willing to see how allowing the scores to be read at the end of three rounds in ten-round fights and at the end of four in 12-round fights would work out—on a six-month trial basis.

ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY—former boxer, trainer, commentator, he’s done it all: There is no way open scoring should be allowed. It would kill all the potential for great drama in the sport of boxing. If it were implemented, it would backfire catastrophically.

MICHAEL SILVER–author, historian: I think it warrants an experiment for several months and in all fights to see how open scoring affects the fighters, corner men and fans in the arena. Mixed feelings about it but worth a try and then evaluate.

ALLAN SWYER–documentary filmmaker, writer, and producer of the acclaimed El Boxeo:Remember Oscar dancing away rounds because he knew he was far ahead in points? We’ll see far more of that kind of behavior with open scoring. My answer is a resounding NO!

DONALD L. TRELLA–prominent boxing judge: I am not a proponent of open scoring. I think part of the excitement that is generated by boxing is the announcement of the winner at the end of the fight. Everyone is on edge and anxious to hear the scores. There are also many ways a fighter can use open scoring to their advantage and diminish the action. For example, if a fighter is way ahead after seven rounds and has a shutout going, what’s the benefit of mixing it up the rest of the way? The fighter in the lead could just dance and stay out of the fray for the remaining five rounds leading to a very boring bout. Another example might be where a fighter is injured by an accidental foul. After four rounds are completed and he knows he’s ahead, he may say he can’t continue due to the injury and win the fight knowing what the score is after 4 rounds. What if a judge realizes he is wide compared to the other judges, does he start to score rounds differently to bring his or her scoring more in line with the other two judges? Very little upside… lots of down side. I actually could go on and on with a lot of examples.

GARY “DIGITAL” WILLIAMS— the voice of “Boxing on the Beltway”: I am totally against open scoring. This takes the excitement of wondering what the final judge’s score will be. Back in April of 1999, there was the Triple Jeopardy card in DC where they tried three types of open scoring — announcing the score after four rounds, after six rounds and after every round. Mark Johnson’s bout was the one tried after every round. After the bout, Mark told me that he knew after about eight rounds that he was well ahead on points so he just coasted to the win. Fans did not get a chance to see his true greatness. Open scoring just does not work on any level.

BEAU WILLIFORD–former trainer and the glue of boxing in Cajun Country: I favor open scoring either way. I think open scoring would provide better boxing matches!

PETER WOOD–former fighter, writer,author: I’m all for the transparency of open scoring, but it wouldn’t work the way we would like. A boxing match’s emotionally-charged environment can be dangerous—and VERY dangerous to a judge who doesn’t score a round like the crowd wants it to be scored. The masses are asses and judges would be too easily influenced and swayed for their own safety

OBSERVATIONS:

Those opposed to Open Scoring overwhelmed those for it by a margin of 40-9. Jim Lampley said he was against it because it kills suspense for fans, places fighters at risk if they fall behind and then take risks not warranted by their abilities, while conversely encouraging a leading fighter to take fewer risks — and risk is at the heart of the sport. Larry Merchant added that he had witnessed a couple of such experiments that fell flat. Either the winning fighter, knowing the score, coasted through the late rounds and/or the losing fighter failed to respond, accepting defeat. The drama of uncertainty works best in prize fighting. J. Russell Peltz, in common with several other respondents, said a better solution is to get better judges. Another frequently-heard comment was pinpointed colorfully by Peter Wood: “A boxing match’s emotionally-charged environment can be dangerous—and VERY dangerous to a judge who doesn’t score a round like the crowd wants it to be scored.” And Steve Farhood summed things up nicely by stating, “..it places undue pressure on the judges and eliminates one of the most dramatic moments in boxing–when the ring announcer reads the final scores in a close fight.”

Some of those in favor, such as Bill Caplan and Mary Ann Owen, favored the WBC plan of open scoring during intervals, rather than after every round. And others thought there would be value in trying it for a trial period.

Ted Sares is one of the oldest active power lifters and is the oldest Strongman competitor in the United States. He recently won the Maine State Championship in his class. He is a member of Ring 4 and its Boxing Hall of Fame.

Photo: Julio Cesar Chavez and Pernell Whitaker battle to a controversial draw in San Antonio.

Check out more boxing news on video at The Boxing Channel

To comment on this article at The Fight Forum, CLICK HERE.

Post Views: 0

Share The Sweet Science experience!

Ted Sares

Up Next

Giant Heavyweights Wilder and Fury Start a Rumpus at L.A. Press Confab

Don't Miss

Are You in Favor or Against Open Scoring in Boxing? Results of a TSS Survey

Notes and Nuggets from Thomas Hauser

Published

3 hours ago

May 18, 2025

Thomas Hauser

In recent years, there has been lavish praise and extensive criticism regarding Turki Alalshikh’s boxing initiative. Some of it has been warranted and some hasn’t. One issue deserves greater comment.

The judging has been pretty good.

Scoring a fight is subjective, which can open the door to bias, incompetence, and corruption.

Most people in boxing know who the good judges are. But some bad ones keep getting high-profile assignments. Why? Because they shade things toward the house fighter which is where the money lies.

When there’s a bad decision in boxing, almost always it favors the house fighter.

Overall, Turki Alalshikh’s fights have been marked by honest scoring.

Oleksandr Usyk went the distance four times against Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua. Fury-Usyk I and Usyk-Joshua II could legitimately have been scored either way. It was in the Saudi’s financial interest (not to mention the interests of Frank Warren and Eddie Hearn) that Fury and Joshua win those fights. Yet Usyk won all four decisions.

Clearly, Turki Alalshikh wanted Hamzah Sheeraz to defeat Carlos Adames. Yet Adames retained his title when that bout was credibly scored a draw.

The list goes on.

Bad scoring trickles down from the top. Judges know that the monied interests behind a promotion want a certain fighter to win and that their receiving lucrative judging assignments in the future often depends on scoring the fight at hand a certain way.

The judging for Turki Alalshikh’s fights so far seems to have been based on the instruction, “Be fair. Get it right.”

Kudos for that.

****

Six years ago after unifying the four major cruiserweight titles, Oleksandr Usyk was honored by the Boxing Writers Association of America as its “Fighter of the Year.” That designation was repeated in 2024 in recognition of his unifying the heavyweight crown.

While in New York to accept his most recent honor, Usyk sat with former NFL MVP Boomer Esiason for an interview that will air in early-June on the nationally syndicated television show Game Time.

Oleksandr came across as thoughtful and likeable during the conversation.

He shared memories of his father: “My father was a military guy. He teach me like a street fight, to work a knife, shooting. I use jujitsu, karate, wrestling, kickboxing. I say, ‘Poppa, what we do this for?’ . . . He says, ‘We prepare’ . . . ‘For what we prepare?’ . . . ‘For life.’”

Usyk won a gold medal in the 201-pound heavyweight division at the 2012 London Olympics. But his father died before Oleksandr could return home and show the medal to him. After Usyk beat Tyson Fury to unify the heavyweight crown, he cried as he proclaimed, “Hey, poppa, we did it.”

“A lot of people in Ukraine who hear that, they cry too,” Oleksandr told Esiason. “Is normal. [Some] people, ‘Hey man! Don’t cry.’ Why not cry? I like to cry.”

Speaking of the size differential between Fury and himself, Usyk noted, “For me, is like a story. David and Goliath. I not afraid because boxing is a sport. Yeah, it’s a guy a little bigger for me. No problem.”

Asked how he would describe his fighting style,” Oleksandr answered, “It’s a wonderful style.”

“Boxing for me is a gentleman’s sport,” he added. “Just respect for my opponents. A lot of people make a show. But if you make a good show and then bad boxing – [with a wave of his hand] PFFFTHF! First in boxing is class and skill; then the show.’

He explained how his training regimen includes holding his breath underwater: “I make like a fight time. Three minutes underwater, one minute rest, twelve rounds. Is hard.”

What’s the longest that Usyk has held his breath underwater?

“My record is 4 minutes 47 seconds.”

The interview closed with Oleksandr appealing directly to the American people to support his Ukrainian homeland in its defense against Russian aggression.

“I’m not political. I’m just [a] man who lives in Ukraine who’s worried for my people.”

And he talked of having brought some Ukrainian soldiers to his fights as guests: “They’re my power, my angels.”

****

Don King has been the subject of an endless stream of anecdotes. Jody Heaps (who spent three decades as a senior creative director and executive producer at Showtime) adds one more to the mix.

“Don had just brought Mike Tyson to Showtime,” Heaps recalls. “We were doing a shoot with Don sitting in a barber chair and he was in a great mood. Toward the end, someone came over to me and said, ‘If Don has the time, could you ask him about his favorite movie scene for a promotion we’re doing.’ So I asked Don what his favorite movie scene was. He told me movies weren’t his thing and said, ‘You tell me. What’s my favorite scene?’

“I talked it over with the crew,” Heaps continues. “Then I suggested the shower scene in Psycho. I figured Don had seen it. Everybody has seen it. But Don told me, ‘I don’t know anything about it. What happens in that scene?’ So I explained that you see Janet Leigh in shower. Then you see a silhouette on the shower curtain. The shower curtain is pulled aside. You see the knife plunging in again and again. And the last thing you see is blood circling down the drain.”

“Don says, ‘Okay; I’ve got it.’ He looks right at the camera and, with incredible drama, starts recreating the scene. Five seconds in, everyone is mesmerized. He takes us through Janet Leigh in the shower, the silhouette on the shower curtain, the knife plunging in again and again, the blood circling down the drain. And at the end, he laughed that loud booming laugh of his and proclaimed, ‘It was a clean kill!’

“There was stunned silence,” Heaps says in closing. “Don made it sound like it was real and he’d been there when it happened.”

****

Like most sports fans, I watched the first round of the NFL draft on April 24. I’ll do the same when the NBA draft is held on June 25. Allow me the following thoughts.

Adam Silver seems like a basketball fan.

Roger Goodell seems like a fan of making money.

Adam Silver looks sincere when he hugs a draftee.

Roger Goodell looks like he wants to take a shower.

Adam Silver comes across as though he has a sense of humor and can laugh at himself.

Roger Goodell comes across as though he doesn’t and can’t.

Adam Silver has James Dolan to deal with and keeps him in line.

Roger Goodell can’t put a lid on Jerry Jones.

Adam Silver is booed in good-natured fashion by fans at the draft.

Roger Goodell is booed with rabid enthusiasm

****

And last; a memory of Turki Alalshikh’s May 2 fight card in Times Square . . .

Security was tight. The police had been instructed to keep pedestrians on the sidewalk moving as they passed the ring enclosure which was blocked from view by a ten-foot-tall fence. Well before the event began, a young man with a video camera planted himself on the sidewalk across the street from the enclosure. A uniformed police officer approached and the following colloquy occurred.

Cop: I’m sorry, sir. You’ll have to move.

Young man: I’m with the media.

Cop: And I’m with the New York Police Department. You’ll have to move.

Thomas Hauser’s email address is thomashauserwriter@gmail.com. His next book – The Most Honest Sport: Two More Years Inside Boxing – will be published this month and is available for preorder at: https://www.amazon.com/Most-Honest-Sport-Inside-Boxing/dp/1955836329

In 2019, Hauser was selected for boxing’s highest honor – induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

To comment on this story in the Fight Forum CLICK HERE

Post Views: 0

Share The Sweet Science experience!

Hiruta, Bohachuk, and Trinidad Win at the Commerce Casino

Published

13 hours ago

May 18, 2025

David A. Avila

Hiruta, Bohachuk, and Trinidad Win at the Commerce Casino

A jam-packed fight card featuring a world champion, top contenders and knockout artists delivered the action but no knockouts on Saturday in the Los Angeles area.

You can’t have everything.

Mizuki “Mimi” Hiruta (8-0, 2 KOs), fresh with a multi-year 360 Boxing Promotion’s contract deal, once again fought and defended the WBO super fly world title and this time against Argentina’s Carla Merino (16-3, 5 KOs) at Commerce Casino.

It was expected to be her toughest test.

Hiruta, who is trained and managed by Manny Robles, showed added poise and a sharp jab that created and established an invisible barrier that Merino could never crack. It was as simple as that.

A sharp right jab from the southpaw Japanese world champion in the opening round gave Merino something to figure out. When the Argentine fighter tried to counter Hiruta was out of range. That distance was a problem that Merino could not solve.

The pink-flame-haired Hiruta looks like an anime figure incapable of violence. But whenever Merino dared unload a combination Hiruta would eagerly pounce on the opportunity. It was clear that the champion’s speed and power was a problem.

For more than a year Hiruta has been training in Southern California and has sparred with numerous styles and situations in the talent-crazy Southern California area. Each time she fights the poise and polish gained from working with a variety of talent and skill partners seems to add more layers to the Japanese fighter’s arsenal.

After six rounds of clear control by Hiruta, the Argentine fighter finally made an assertive move to change the momentum with combination punching. Both exchanged but Hiruta cornered Merino and opened up with a seven-punch barrage.

In the eighth round Merino tried again to force an exchange and again Hiruta opened up with a three-punch combo followed by a four-punch combo. Merino dived inside the attack by the Japanese champion and accidentally butted Hiruta’s head. No serious damage appeared.

Merino tried valiantly to exchange with Hiruta but the strength, speed and agility were too much to overcome in the last two rounds of the fight. Left hand blows by the champion connected solidly several times in the final round.

After 10 rounds all three judges saw Hiruta the winner by decision 98-92 twice and 99-91. The fighter from Tokyo retains the WBO super fly title for the fourth time.

Bohachuk Wins

Ukraine’s Serhii Bohachuk (26-2, 24 KOs) defeated Mykal Fox (24-5, 5 KOs) by unanimous decision but had problems corralling the much taller fighter after 10 rounds in a super welterweight match.

It was only the second time Bohachuk won by decision.

Fox used movement all 10 rounds that never allowed Bohachuk to plant his feet to deliver his vaunted power. But though Fox had moments, they were not enough to offset the power shots that did land. Two judges scored it 97-93 for the Ukrainian and another had it 98-92

“Good experience for me,” said Bohachuk of Fox’s movement.

King of LA

In a super featherweight match Omar “King of LA” Trinidad (19-0-1, 13 KOs) dominated Nicaragua’s Alexander Espinoza (23-7-3, 8 KOs) but never came close to knocking out the spirited fighter. But did come close to dropping him.

The fighter out of the Boyle Heights area in the boxing hotbed of East L.A. was able to exchange freely with savage uppercuts to the body and head, but Espinoza would not quit. For 10 rounds Trinidad battered away at Espinoza but a knockout win was not possible.

After 10 rounds all three judges favored Trinidad (100-90, 99-91, 98-92) who retains his regional WBC title and his place in the featherweight rankings.

“I’m living the dream,” said Trinidad.

Maywood Fighter Medina on Target

Lupe Medina (10-0, 2 KOs) proved ready for the elite in knocking down world title challenger Maria Santizo (12-6, 6 KOs) and winning by unanimous decision after eight rounds in a minimumweight match up.

Medina, a model-looking fighter out of Maywood, Calif, accepted a match against Santizo who had fought three times against world titlists including L.A. great Seniesa Estrada. She looked perfectly in her element.

Behind a ramrod jab and solid defense, Medina avoided the big swinging Santizo’s punches while countering accurately. For every home run swing by the Guatemalan fighter Medina would connect with a sharp right or left.

In the fifth round, Santizo opened up with a crisp three-punch combination and Medina opened up with her own four-punch blast that seemed to wobble the veteran fighter. Medina stepped on the gas and fired strategic blows but never left herself open for counters.

Medina didn’t waste time in the sixth round. A crisp one-two staggered Santizo who reeled backward. The referee ruled it a knockdown and Santizo was in trouble. Medina went into attack mode as Santizo pulled every trick she knew to keep from being overrun by the Maywood fighter.

In the last two rounds Medina seemed to look for the perfect shot to end the fight. Santizo kept busy with short shots and stayed away from meaningful exchanges. Medina also might have been gassed from expending so many punches in the prior round.

The two female fighters both seemed to want a knockout in the eighth round. Santizo was wary of Medina’s power and dived in close to smother Medina’s firing zone. Neither woman was able to connect with any significant shots.

After eight rounds all three judges scored in favor of Medina 77-74, 76-75 and 80-71.

It was proof Medina belongs among the top minimumweight fighters.

Other Bouts

In a super welterweight fight Michael Meyers (7-2) defeated Eduardo Diaz (9-4) by unanimous decision in a tough scrap. Mayers proved to be more accurate and was able to withstand a late rally by Diaz.

Abel Mejia (8-0) defeated Antonio Dunton El (6-4-2) by decision after six rounds in a super feather match.

Jocelyn Camarillo (4-0) won by split decision after four rounds versus Qianyue Zhao (0-2) in a light flyweight bout.

Photos credit: Al Applerose

To comment on this story in the Fight Forum CLICK HERE

Post Views: 0

Share The Sweet Science experience!

David Allen Bursts Johnny Fisher’s Bubble at the Copper Box

Published

21 hours ago

May 17, 2025

Arne K. Lang

David-Allen-Bursts-Johnny-Fisher's-Bubble-at-the-Copper-Box

The first meeting between Johnny Fisher, the Romford Bull, and David Allen, the White Rhino, was an inelegant affair that produced an unpopular decision. Allen put Fisher on the canvas in the fifth frame and dominated the second half of the fight, but two of the judges thought that Fisher nicked it, allowing the “Bull” to keep his undefeated record. That match was staged last December in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, underneath Usyk-Fury II.

The 26-year-old Fisher, who has a fervent following, was chalked a 13/5 favorite for the sequel today at London’s Copper Box Arena. At the weigh-in, Allen, who carried 265 pounds, looked as if he had been training at the neighborhood pub.

Through the first four rounds, Fisher fought cautiously, holding tight to his game plan. He worked his jab effectively and it appeared as if the match would go the full “10” with the Romford man winning a comfortable decision. However, in the waning moments of round five, he was a goner, left splattered on the canvas.

This was Fisher’s second trip to the mat. With 30 seconds remaining in the fifth, Allen put him on the deck with a clubbing right hand. Fisher got up swaying on unsteady legs, but referee Marcus McDonnell let the match continue. The coup-de-gras was a crunching left hook.

Fisher, who was 13-0 with 11 KOs heading in, went down face first with his arms extended. The towel flew in from his corner, but that was superfluous. He was out before he hit the canvas.

A high-class journeyman, the 33-year-old David Allen improved to 24-7-2 with his 16^th knockout. He promised fireworks – “going toe-to-toe, that’s just the way I’m wired” – and delivered the goods.

Other Bouts of Note

Northampton middleweight Kieron Conway added the BBBofC strap to his existing Commonwealth belt with a fourth-round stoppage of Welsh southpaw Gerome Warburton. It was the third win inside the distance in his last four outings for Conway who improved to 23-3-1 (7 KOs).

Conway trapped Warburton (15-2-2) in a corner, hurt him with a body punch, and followed up with a barrage that forced the referee to intervene as Warburton’s corner tossed in the white flag of surrender. The official time was 1:26 of round four. Warburton’s previous fight was a 6-rounder vs. an opponent who was 8-72-4.

In the penultimate fight on the card, George Liddard, the so-called “Billericay Bomber,” earned a date with Kieron Conway by dismantling Bristol’s Aaron Sutton who was on the canvas three times before his corner pulled him out in the final minute of the fifth frame.

The 22-year-old Liddard (12-0, 7 KOs) was a consensus 12/1 favorite over Sutton who brought a 19-1 record but against tepid opposition. His last three opponents were a combined 16-50-5 at the time that he fought them.

Also

In a bout that wasn’t part of the ESPN slate, Johnny Fisher stablemate John Hedges, a tall cruiserweight, won a comprehensive 10-round decision over Liverpool’s Nathan Quarless. The scores were 99-92, 98-92, and 97-93.

Purportedly 40-4 as an amateur, Hedges advanced his pro ledger to 11-0 (3). It was the second loss in 15 starts for the feather-fisted Quarless, a nephew of 1980s heavyweight gatekeeper Noel Quarless.

Photo credit: Mark Robinson / Matchroom

To comment on this story in the Fight Forum CLICK HERE