To BrianCal, what exactly was so laugh my ass off funny about a discussion of rules and dispute of a fight decision, it might be funny to you sitting there commenting on other peoples trials and tribulations but when you are there behind the scenes doing the work and a brick walls thrown against you in the end it can get pretty frustrating. Until you have been in the situation please save your expert opinion and maybe your Laughs out loud for a night at jongleurs because i am not remotely interested in them.

To wainey, the tactics that we used were the correct tactics under the circumstances, if you had seen the height difference yourself you would understand why we had to cover with double gloves and close the distance to counter. It would be pointless trying to dodge back from the kicks and then make an attack from such a distance.

Every time gordon covered he closed the distance and landed more than he took. As far as i know it was effectiveness that counted but apparently not. I could see your point wainey if that was all that landed was a kick on the gloves but gordon was unphased by any of it and closed the distance every time and rallied in some good strikes usually finishing with good knees in the clinch. You would be better watching the fight so you know what im talking about.

Im not trying to change the rules. the fights in Scotland used to be 3 rounds and all rounds were scored, we changed to 5 rounds because we weren't getting the best out of the fighters over the first 3 rounds due to nerves etc and technique going out the window. The 5 rounds were introduced in Scotland to change that and give the fighters a chance to disperse that nervousness and settle down into a fight that the judges can properly judge. It was also a better platform to prepare inexperienced fighters for the longer rounds of B and A class competition. It was at a stage where you didnt know who the hell was winning because people were just coming out swinging for 3 rounds and you would need a keen eye to tell who was winning.

Having "Changed" the rules from 3 to 5 rounds made a difference and i would say helped a lot but now it seems fighters are reluctant to commit anything to rounds 1 and 2 and therefore why score it, now are you guys telling me that the vast majority of guys in scotland are happy doing the first two rounds and not getting scored for it, i personally feel, and i know im not alone with some of your instructors agreeing with me, (ask them yourself) in that ALL rounds should be judged with an "emphasis" on 3, 4, 5 with the stronger fighter in the later rounds winning.

Now i could appeal the decision but unfortunately a review will not take place anyway because the individuals involved are happy with the results and you can like it or lump it so we are lumping it.

END OFF