Finally got to see that 2008 Rogan-Harrison fight, and yeah Rogan was terrific. Not very slick but a real bulldog.
Awesome, I'm glad you saw it!
Yea, Rogan is a guy who was driving taxis in Northern Ireland who became a heavyweight contender and managed to get some good wins. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think he had any amateur boxing experience whatsoever.
He basically just took up boxing in his mid 30's, as a hobby. His KO win over Negro Matt Skelton and his decision win over Negro Olympic Gold Medalist Audley Harrison were amazing, and in both fights, he would have been a massive betting underdog. After the Harrison win, Martin Rogan was an impressive 12-0, with a win over an Olympic Gold Medalist (who later fought David Haye)!
It was a real underdog story. A man who changed his life in a good way through courage and hard work, with all the odds stacked against him. Taxi driver turned legit heavyweight contender.
Martin Rogan is a great man, and as I recall even in his fight with Tyson Fury, Tyson knocked Martin out but showed tremendous respect and sportsmanship to Rogan post fight. That was a nice touch from Tyson Fury and it shows that Rogan commands a lot of respect!
Immediately the fight ended the ref raised Rogan's hand. It seems that the ref was the sole judge of the fight. Was that an experimental system? So maybe the ref judging system is better, except the refs they've got around here are often almost as crooked and incompetent as the so-called judges.
It is sometimes commonplace in only the UK for fights to be judged solely by the referee. Tyson Fury, John McDermott, David Haye, Martin Rogan, Ricky Hatton etc have all had numerous fights in the UK that have been judged only by the referee. Immediately after the fight is done, the referee will raise one of the hands of the boxers, and that corresponds to who the referee has judged to be the winner.
It's just a different system of judging a fight, and perhaps it has to do with the promoter or commission wanting to eliminate costs of employing 3 judges (fine by me, especially when said 3 judges so often get paid to bring in false scorecards, lol!). Of course, ultimately, referees use the same criteria to judge a fight, a 10 point must system with an emphasis on landing punches.
In the USA, Canada, and Germany, there is always 3 judges to judge a fight. I don't necessarily think one system is fairer or better than another. They are both open to manipulation, bias, and error.
In my own personal opinion, judging in boxing is a disaster, but I love the sport anyway and I always will. What would help to eliminate a margin of error though is to have more judges, 5 or 7, per titlefight. In my own opinion. Of course the drawback to that is that you'd have to pay extra judges to work that. But it should only be done in titlefights.
3 Judges is too small and just one biased judge, or one incompetent judge, can screw the whole fight up. I think that having more judges for titlefights would help eliminate some bad decisions. I'm not saying it would get rid of all corruption, but it would help to expand the # of judges IMO.
