The version of Internet Explorer that you are using is outdated and not officially supported by this site. We heavily suggest upgrading to a more modern browser using one of these links: Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari or Google Chrome. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact us.
Currently, you have Javascript disabled. Many of the features on this site require Javascript in order to function. It is highly recommended for you to enable Javascript in order to use this site to its fullest. For more info, please contact us.
The Ax Forum
Muay Thai & Kickboxing Forum Mixed Martial Arts Forum Boxing Forum Fight Training Forum Off Topic Forum
Help Center Forum Rules New Account Registration
Posted: 2006-05-22 01:13:11
WPKL Strips Mary Hart.

Heres the story:

In a videotape replay of the Soumia vs Mary Hart WPKL World Title fight
which originally took place in The Netehrlands back on April 15th, 2006,
The WPKL has reversed the original fight judges' decision
which had awarded the WPKL Title to Mary Hart by unanimou8s decision.

The new judges decision reversed the original decision made at ringside,
on April 15th, 2006 and awarded the WPKL Title to Soumia
after the newly appointed judges viewed a taped copy of the fight.

3 new officials who were not present
at the actual fight on April 15th, including 2 board members/promoters, and the WPKL chairman and Soumia’s team were present at the videotaped replay. Mary Hart’s camp was invited, but didn’t attend. After watching the video of the fight, the new judges scored the fight as follows::

Judge 1: 46-49 Soumia
Judge 2: 46-49 Soumia
Judge 3: 49-50 Soumia

-The World Title was awarded to Soumia as of April 15th. (Day of the fight).
Soumia is now officially WPKL-World champion -54Kg

The board further ruled that:

1. Mary Hart must give back the belt

2. At the first upcoming WPKL event, Soumia
will receive the WPKL belt.

3. The first challenger, if interested, will be Mary Hart.

Is a reply and revaluation a good way to handle a protest of
a juries decision? Or is a remacth the better answer?

I am of the opinion that a world title fight ought to consist of five three minute rounds for muay thai-whether the fighters are male or female.
This fight was 5x2-since it was women.

Had it been 5x3 instead of 5x2, is it possible that perhaps one or the other fighters may have with an extra five minutes of fighting been able to assert dominacne in the fight, and perhaps the outcomne would have been less in doubt?

any thoughts on how an org should handle protests about jury decisions?

Dan Green was one of the original judges, and I would be especially interested in his views-IF he is free to comment, that is. :)

Mr Smith
Posted: 2006-05-22 03:19:11
Ridiculous. You cant change the result of a fight after the event.
It should be the other way round - automatic rematch.
Makes a joke of the whole thing.
Posted: 2006-05-22 03:26:03
Bollocks rules to suit them awful idea rematch yes but doing that is crap.
Colin Payne
Posted: 2006-05-22 03:37:04
I'm sure this is the second time I have read the WPKL have done this, its as said bollocks!..The only way to properly judge a fight is ringside...not 30 feet back, not at the back of the hall and so def not on TV.

There's a big stink going on in Boxing at mo with the recent Damien Kelly fight and there may be a rematch, but as bad as it was they would not do this.

The officials used should refuse to work for the WPKL again.
liam badco
Posted: 2006-05-22 03:37:25
a month after the fight???????????? lol complete joke
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-22 04:02:01
Thats a pile of crap.

The fight was originally judged at ringside from 3 different sides of the ring. It was re-evaluated on tape with all judges sitting together in the same room as Soumias people.

Did the WPKL offer to pay for Harts team to attend or were they expected to make their own way to Holland or wherever the meeting took place?

Who appointed the original judges and who chose the second lot?

Who were the original 3 judges, it would be interesting to get all their views.
Posted: 2006-05-22 04:37:28
what a load of dog sh*t and the new judges still didnt fully agree, how can a 46-49 look like a 49-50.and how can u judge a fight from a cameramans perspective? pathetic
Posted: 2006-05-22 04:41:02
I'm pissing my pants. 3 judges over turn a decision watching a fight on a flat screen with the people who want it over turning (Soumia's team)??

That seems like a fair and democratic process!!! NOT!!

Posted: 2006-05-22 07:13:41
were the 2 sets of judges watching the same fight????? how can there be such a big discrepancy in the scores between the sets of judges ... Rat and smells like spring to mind ...

Posted: 2006-05-22 07:16:55
Nobody here seems to take in account the position WPKL put itself in just after the fight.

Basicly I think the WPKL had 3 options:

1) Do nothing. And with that covering their own mess leaving Mary Hart a Worldtitle which apparently was “given” to her since Soumia because of her age (18) and inexperience (this was her 3th A-class fight) never had a chance to win this fight in the first place.
2) Review the fight with a new “uncompromised” jury.
3) Call it a “no contest” (think that is the English word, but I’m not sure), and do a rematch ASAP.

So basicly a choice of 3 evils.
All 3 options hurt both fighters and the WPKL itself.
Of course this makes the international jury present look bad to the outside world. But it’s an internal WPKL problem. Fact is the international jury was disqualified by (maybe unintentional) but very clumsy words of one of it’s own high officials.
So are they willing to take the blow for a screw-up of one of their own or not? I think they will since I expect them to be very much aware of what actually happened.

One can even argue WPKL is one of the few sanction body’s self critic enough to take steps to fix it’s own srew-ups. Most SB’s would have covered up and waited until the whole thing was blown over. If they did it the right and smartest way???? That is a different question. At least they did something where most SB’s would have called it a day.

Fortunately this whole affair doesn’t reflect the fight itself. It was a great fight with two great fighters. Both very much worthy being World Champions. Too bad it has to end this way. I hope both agree on a rematch very soon. That would be the proper way to go I think.
Posted: 2006-05-22 08:46:36
Dave Jackson writes:

Who were the original 3 judges, it would be interesting to get all their views.

===Dave, Dan Green was one of the three original judges===

Posted: 2006-05-22 08:48:09
Brian Ritchie
Posted: 2006-05-22 08:49:03
I don't like it when people sweep things under the carpet. It is admirable for an organization to fix its mistakes.


If you have a screwup, you must fix it right away in the most fair way possible. This evidently was handled poorly. I can't possibly see any way in which this is fair to Mary Hart's camp.

Why was this fight revisited anyway? Did people complain heavily about the decision? It is not like Mary Hart had the home town advantage.
Posted: 2006-05-22 09:05:32
Sounds like deja vu to me.

If you remember I had the same thing happen when Janine Davis fought Louise O'Donnell for the WPKL world title a couple of years ago.

The 3 appointed officials that the wpkl were paid for could not find a winner and the fight was scored a draw (its fair to say that opinion fell generally with O'donnell with some opting for Davis) but that is irrelevent, the judges scored a draw.
O'donnells trainer lodged a complaint at the result, not really expecting anything from it and consequently, a couple of days later the original judges were told that as this was a vacant title they had to find a winner.
Unfortunately for O'donnell, they went with Davis.

Nick Stone (O'donnells trainer) lodged a further complaint to the WPKL who reviewed the video tape some weeks later and reversed the decision.

My point (which I made very strongly at the time) was that although I probably agreed that O'donnell had done enough to win - I was not a judge. They scored a draw and I did not complain. Unfortunately Nick Stone originally shot himself in the foot by pressing for a winner.

But the actual system was a pile of shit from start to finish. I expected far more from the WPKL but the emails that I recieved following this from them were also not good.

The result was the result (we have all had bad desicions go against us). I would happily have made the rematch but for O'donnell this was her retirement fight, and whilst I felt for her, the very reason that I employed the WPKL was to avoid this controversial shit.

For the record I refused to return the belt and told them to piss up a rope. I also asked for any of my fighters to be removed from their ratings as we would not be fighting under WPKL again.
I also asked that (as a promoter) I would like to be refunded my judges costs as obviously they thought the ones supplied could not do the job and needed someone in thier bedroom somewhere in Holland to watch the video and make the final decision.

If I had wanted a cack handed corner shop to sanction my world title event I would have made up my own association name and got a few friends round after to watch the video and make a decision for less money.

Video tape decisions are a joke for any organisation but I have to say that WPKL could not see that this was a bad thing.

Mary - do not give the belt back, you have been champion for a period of time. Just relinquish and move on, and away from these jokers.

For your own personnal satisfaction, get the re-match on, but with a more credible organisation, even if there is no world title on the line.

Sorry to ramble on - but this thread brought back the outrage I felt at the WPKL system when it happenned to me.


Posted: 2006-05-22 10:08:37
By the way - I obviuosly didnt get my refund!
Brian Ritchie
Posted: 2006-05-22 11:15:38
"I also asked that (as a promoter) I would like to be refunded my judges costs as obviously they thought the ones supplied could not do the job and needed someone in thier bedroom somewhere in Holland to watch the video and make the final decision."

That is a very good point, actually. You paid for a service and they had failed at providing that service.

If I were in Soumia's camp, I would be disappointed in getting a "title" in this manner.
Posted: 2006-05-22 12:34:16

I don't think the WPKL only had three options. From the sounds of things they could have had as many options as they wanted to give themselves.
The judges were appointed by the WPKL or it's representatives and if the WPK were unhappy, they have their options in the future.
The decision must stand as it was the result of the WPKL appointed officials.

However you look at this there is only one reasonable solution if they are unhappy having reviewed it, Soumia offered a rematch (shoud she have a promoter to host it) and Mary Hart must defend it against Soumia within the WPKL's stated time limits (usually 6 months).

I'm really unhappy about this as i have always held the WPKL as a credible sanctioning body.
Posted: 2006-05-22 12:43:43
You can also imagine how disappointed I was that the promotion I had put together as professionally as possible was brought down by a body that I thought would match the credentials of the show.
By the way please note that it is not a gripe about the decision because my girl was stripped etc etc, it is purely the way in which the WPKL handled this and subsequently tried to defend it.......... I expected more!
Posted: 2006-05-22 13:11:10
Brian Ritchie writes:

Why was this fight revisited anyway? Did people complain heavily about the decision? It is not like Mary Hart had the home town advantage.

===It was reviewed after Soumia's manager filed a protest with the wpkl because he thought the first panel of judges' (unanimous) decision was wrong.

Posted: 2006-05-22 13:14:13
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-22 13:43:22
I learned today the video viewing took place in Holland on a Thursday night and they did not offer to cover Marys' representaives travel expenses.

The first three judges also scored the bout unanimously with very little differences in the score cards. The original judges were from Holland, Belgium and England. All 3 of these judges have filed a letter of disgust at the overturning of their original descision. I also was under the impression that under the WPKL rules a descision that is unanimous cannot be overturned.

Colin...I agree I too think the only credible option would be to let Mary keep the title that the WPKL officials awarded her on the night and then make Soumia the mandatory challenger.

I also heard a few rumours today that one of of the officials at the video judging was not an official WPKL Judge and that one of the new board members is on a short list for a job with Soumias managent team but I dont know if this has any bearing on the matter.
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-22 13:56:11
Another thing is that Mary took this on 10 days notice when she hadnt been in the gym.

Mary training for 6 months and a then a rematch...scary thought ...ouch!
Mr Smith
Posted: 2006-05-22 15:31:54
Eric R writes:
"Do nothing. And with that covering their own mess leaving Mary Hart a Worldtitle which apparently was “given” to her since Soumia because of her age (18) and inexperience (this was her 3th A-class fight) never had a chance to win this fight in the first place."
If this is the case what was the WPKL doing sanctioning her for a World Title in the first place????

It appears that the only way that she had a chance of winning a world title at 18 with only 3 A class fights is for it to be given to her politically rather than winning it in the ring.

This is not an attack on the fighter as I dont know her and have never seen her fight but the decision is the decision on the night and it doesnt make sense to change it after the event. The crowd that paid to see the show saw one fighter have their hand raised and that is that. If the decision is made by recognised officials and sanctioned by the governing body and if there was no technical error made how can it be overturned? Especially if it was unanimous?

This would never happen in Boxing and is exactly why our sport is so far behind.
Posted: 2006-05-22 18:40:14
"If this is the case what was the WPKL doing sanctioning her for a World Title in the first place????"

Indeed Mr. Smit. That was the question which raised all this mess. But that is excactly what the WPKL official brought over his organisation with his remarks in presents of the Dutch press.
So whatever the WPKL would do afterwards would do harm to both fighters and the WPKL itself. Only way out is a rematch and hope and pray both camps will accept it is my guess.
You think Soumia is eager to fight WPKL after being insulted being too young and inexperienced to be "a worthy World Champion"??? You think Mary Hart is eager to fight WPKL after being stripped from a title???

It's easy now to hammer down WPKL for trying to make good on a impossible situation which was created by one of their chief officials.(probably even with best intentions to comfort, and not realizing what he said). Fact is the jury was disqualified with his words. So the fight itself isn't even relevant anymore. That's the whole point of this mess.

It's not about Mary Hart nor Soumia. Both girls did great. Both on very poory preps. Hart on short notice indeed and Soumia just back from a filmshoot in Bangkok. I've had a great evening watching the fight. Think everybody present did. That is not the point. Fight is available on DVD, so please judge yourself.

This is a WPKL matter and doesn't reflect on any of these two great fighters.
This is about a SB which screws up bigtime and "if" and "how" they try to fix it. Whichever way they choose, they can't make this right. Even if they had done nothing it would be damaging. It's an impossible choice between evils.
Their choice of having the fight reviewed might even have been a good and logical idea on paper........

Posted: 2006-05-23 02:23:41
by stripping mary of the title (in such a public manner)it has caused more problems...ppl need not have known about all this in the background....its opened a right can of worms!
A possible better way around it would have been to just put on the re-match and acknowledge a bad situation/poor management etc, but go forward in a positive manner and "manage" around the previous problems...
it was a great fight between to great fighters (so I am told) so ppl would not have questioned why they were fighting again so soon.
there are not that many female fighters at that level, so an on going battle of wills is exciting and keeps it positive.
look at boxing where top champs have fought 2,3,4 times....nobody questions why they fought so often...

maybe some lessons to be learnt here???
this is a great forum to discuss fighting matters and it is rare to discuss "management" matters... I think this is good for the sport to avoid this problem happening again.
It also calls into question the validity, qualifications and experience of judges....can this be done from video? i think not.

you guys know I love my quotes, so in conclusion....
- we only learn from our mistakes
- why make the same mistake twice, there are plenty of new ones to make!!!
Posted: 2006-05-23 03:08:24
people should avoid association supporting such farces and not put fighters on shows sanctioned by them, simple as.
Posted: 2006-05-23 05:14:21
The point is the WPKL do not learn from their mistakes, in fact they sit perfectly happy with the fact that they can over rule a group of judges that have been (alledgedly) approved by them, just because someone on the other side shouts loud enough.
As I said at the time of my incident, If I shout loud enough about the second panel judging it by video, will you do it again for me with another panel of judges and another video. And even if you do, what makes the video judges right?
What makes them more efficient than the people they originally placed at ringside?

So somebody please tell me what is the point of a rematch under WPKL sanctioning when they have no intention of modifying that "Second panel of video judges" rule. If someone shouts loud enough in the rematch it will only happen again.
By the way I also requested the written rules of the WPKL both before my event and after when the situation blew up. They were never forwarded and I don't believe they even exist. So who knows what their rules actually are?

They are just another organisation who have done some great things in the past, and sanctioned some great events, but have now slipped into the "tin pot organisation" department.

This latest load of old crap does nothing for the game at all. The various powers that be will look at us and laugh, and they are right.

Colin Payne
Posted: 2006-05-23 05:32:50
Unless I have missed it......but why was this fight decision 'reviewed' in the first place?? Curious cos there must have been an initial 'complaint', but would be interested to know what grounds there were for the complaint. Surely it wasn't just because 'the fight was close' or 'we wuz robbed!!'

Neil Holden
Posted: 2006-05-23 08:39:28
Posting as am organiser that has promoted and sanctioned WPKL, I feel that this is really unfortunate for the sport.

Many in the Thai-Kickboxing game look to WPKL as one of the main associations, just as people within Boxing circles aspire to hold a WBC, WBA, or an IBF title.

Mary Hart and her team would/should be regarded as one of their main ambassadors, promoting their name and titles on a regular basis - their treatment on this occasion is unbelievable!

Not only had Mary previously won another WPKL World title, but her team had also arranged for her to defend it too.

I hope that this gets sorted out as quickly and as professionally as possible.

Any decisions reversed, should be those recently taken by the WPKL that has lead to this situation.

Mary Hart should immediately be reinstalled as the Champion, and the first defence of that title should be offered to Soumia.

Posted: 2006-05-23 08:41:33
...........But not under rules and conditions that would still allow the same thing to happen again if someone shouts loud enough!!!
Nuff Said!
Neil Holden
Posted: 2006-05-23 09:21:07
Agreed Carl.

Associations should also have available online their complete rules and regulations.

Anyone then competing can download a hard copy before they compete, and have it at hand on the day.

Lets hope this all gets sorted out promptly!
Brian Ritchie
Posted: 2006-05-23 12:00:34
Colin Payne

I think I understand the story now.

1. Mary wins fight vs Soumia by unanimous decision.
2. In press conference after the fight, one of the WPKL Chief officials said of Soumia that she was too young and inexperienced to win. Evidently, he was trying to be consoling and give some bit of excuse for her loss, suggesting that she will do better in the future....but that comment backfired. It showed some bias against Soumia and brought up questions about the judgement.
3. Soumia's camp made a complaint
4. The tape was reviewd by three more judges, one of which was not an official judge
5. They reversed the unanimous decision for Mary Hart and unanimously gave their decision to Soumia.

So, in summary, an official of WPKL made a really irresponsible public comment. Re-evaluating the fight tape and pulling the belt from Mary Hart is a political move to help undo the damage done by that official's comments.

However, that also is backfiring. In my eyes, the WPKL tried to fix one mistake with a worse trying to put a fire out with petrol.

What that official SHOULD have done is make a public statement making it clear that he should not have made those comments about Soumia, and that the judging was done by three inidividuals from three different countries and it was legitimate judging. Then an immediate rematch should bave been established.
Colin Payne
Posted: 2006-05-23 13:17:18
wow, if thats true, Mickey and mouse come to mind!
Brian Ritchie
Posted: 2006-05-23 14:01:26
Note, the guy that made the comment was not one of the original three judges.

The biggest misconception here is that one guy's comment about Soumia would suggest bias on the part of the judges.
Posted: 2006-05-23 14:20:13
it still begs the question.........why would you arrange an immidiate re-match with an association that is more than happy to re-judge a contest via videotape viewing. It's bollocks!
Everyone has an opinion so lets ask everyone in the game, come up with the average and make the decision from there.
You may as well have an "Ask the audience" option for the WPKL at the end of the fight. They can all press their buttons now and the fighter with the highest percentage gets the belt. Oh and if one of the camps complains we can always get another bunch of people to watch it again, and of course their opinion will be more valid because you can see so much more on a videotape than ringside right?

Whatever anyone said,whoever they were,where ever they were and whoever they were talking about - the system is total garbage, but defended by a senior official from the WPKL.
It is irrelevent how young Soumia was or how the comment was mis-interpreted etc etc blah blah blah.
From being a credible organisation at one point in time, the WPKL are now an absolute joke and whats more, quite happy to be so. They have no intention of reviewing their "lets re-judge a fight cos someone made a noise" policy.

If a decision is blatantly poor, you review your officials and if they don't come up to scratch, you replace them right? You don't strip the fighter!

I repeat...Jokers mate!
Brian Ritchie
Posted: 2006-05-23 15:30:35
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you.
Mr Smith
Posted: 2006-05-23 15:57:21
At the end of the day the only person who is being punished or affected here is Mary Hart who has done nothing except turn up and fight.

It is ridiculous to change the decision after it has been given. We've all had decisions against our fighters that we have not agreed with and many of us will have probably found out stuff afterward that lead us to suspect that the judges were biased but at the end of the day you just sgrug and walk away and get on with it.

The only credible thing that could have been done was to order a rematch within a certain timescale and then if this has not happened make the title vacant again.

There seems to be the implication that the rules of the WPKL allow decisions to be overturned like this but no-one has actually seen these rules including promoters who have sanctioned with WPKL.
Posted: 2006-05-23 16:37:33
So lets have the rules on screen then.

Come on Dan, you sat on the fence last time - lets have your viewpoint this time:)

Richard - quite right (and I take your point by the way:))
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-23 16:42:39
Neil and Bulldog, the WPKL do have their rules on their website for all to read.

Eric R, as you are fluent in both languages would it be possible for you to translate the protest rule from the WPKL's website for us? The website can be found here WPKL Site and the the pdf file can be downloaded from the 'Reglementen' section

It can be found on page 14 of the rules and reads as follows...

1. Protest kan alleen schriftelijk, vergezeld van een videoband, worden aangetekend, en wel binnen 14 dagen na datum van gevecht.
2. Protesen met een une anieme uitslag (3 juryleden) worden niet behandeld.
Posted: 2006-05-23 17:12:25
I agree with Richard, the only person being punished is Mary.

In my opinion a world body should only use trained judges. This is even more important for a world title fight. If officials are well trained, a world or national body could be confident of any decision reached by them and be able to stand by that decision; whatever appeals are made against it. In this case a rematch would have been the only fair decision.

The WPKL are in a difficult situation now; one of their own making. They should order a rematch. It also seems strange that not only was a unanimous decision overturned by a panel, but that even the newly appointed panel didn’t really agree; two judges saw the fight as being rather one-sided and the third very close.
Posted: 2006-05-23 17:22:54
Think both girls are victims Mr. Smit. Which ever way you turn it, both will have and keep a bad taste. Personally I think we can discuss this until X-mas and still not come up with a good solution.

Maybe we should take lessons from i.e. soccer where a ref. is sent on retirement because he did an Opel commercial. So if he ever had to do a AC Milan game again his objectivity would be questionable. Or a ref being disqualified from a Champions League final because he wore a Barca shirt ones. Bottom line, maybe we need to start being more careful selecting a jury at these international fights. And in this case, maybe high ranking officials need to be more careful choosing their words. Because I do believe like in any other sport or business for that matter, their words reflect the views and position of their organisation. Especially if they are present in their function. This was not just “some guys words”. This was a high ranking WPKL official. But we all are humans, all make mistakes. But you have to take responsibilities for your actions……..

I’m not long enough in this sport to know if this is a unique situation. Protesting a jury instead of a jury decision, and how to handle it????? I haven’t seen it before, and hope never to see it again. I do however think Soumia’s team had a legit claim because of these unique circumstances. And I think WPKL indeed needed to address the problem. But it’s more of an interesting study case than it has to do with fighting or these girls for that matter. Best thing would indeed be a rematch asap. Only that would bring some justice to these 2 great fighters.
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-23 17:34:43
And the translation?
Posted: 2006-05-23 17:53:50
Of course with pleasure Dave. If you don’t ban me from certain topics you put me to work  Good to see you again. LOL too.

1. Protest kan alleen schriftelijk, vergezeld van een videoband, worden aangetekend, en wel binnen 14 dagen na datum van gevecht.
2. Protesen met een une anieme uitslag (3 juryleden) worden niet behandeld.++++

1. Protest can only been done in writing, accompanied by a videotape, at special (personal) mail delivery(don’t know the term) within max 14 days after the fight.
2. Protest of a unanimous decision will not be taken in consideration.

But, the WPKl statement made last Friday says:

++++++Na afloop van het titelgevecht is een protest ingediend door team Soumia.

In de bestuursvergadering van de WPKL op 9 mei 2006 is, ondanks verdeeldheid onder de bestuursleden en de unanieme juryuitslag, besloten het protest in behandeling te nemen.
Na twijfels van het team Soumia aan de onpartijdigheid van sommige juryleden door onderlinge strijdpunten, heeft het Bestuur onderzoek gedaan en dat is reden geweest om het protest in behandeling te nemen+++++++

After the fight Soumia’s team filed a protest.

At the WPKL meeting May 9th 2006, even though there was disagreement between the members and the fact it concerned a unanimous jury decision, members decided to address the protest.
Doubts expressed by team Soumia concerning the objectivity of some jury members because conflict made the board decide to do research. Outcome of this research gave reason to indeed address the protest.

Hope I translated it well Dave. Did it as best I could. 
Bottomline is they are bypassing the rules you made me translate from their WPKL rules and make it special circumstances. This because apparently the protest doesn’t address the fight itself (at least that is what I make of this statement), but it challenges the credibility of some of the jury members. And after doing research to that they claim to have sufficient evidence for taking the protest into consideration. (Which of course isn’t very hard I guess since i.e. this story made “De nieuwe Revue” which is one of Holland’s biggest selling weekly magazine because of the presents of the reporter I mentioned before in this topic. LOL).
Posted: 2006-05-23 18:09:55
if that is the case they are just making matters even worse ...all they are doing in real terms is very badly changing the witdth of the goal posts
Posted: 2006-05-24 02:07:36

Come on Dan, you sat on the fence last time - lets have your viewpoint this time:)

===I try to maintain objectivity Carl, because I dont want to appear biased in the coverages to the sport of womens KB on

I will answer this time because my opinion on this ISSUE is already expressed in writing in the WIKBA rules.(rewritten for more clarity after the O'Donnell fight)

I hope it doesnt come across as self serving, but my sanctioning org,
WIKBA, absolutely does NOT consider protests of *judgment* calls by referees or *judgement* decisions of judges, because we believe that's what they are PAID for-Their JUDGEMENTS-not their infallibility.

And this is true even if the decision appeared to me personally, to be poorly judged. In every fight the judges were in the very best position to see up close and personal what actually happened in the ring.
I only watch tapes for entertainment-not to second guess trained judges.

see our rules which is address this issue at the bottom of the page at(

(But please ignore the ratings, they are DESPERATELY in need of serious update, btw)

The only protest WIKBA will consider is if the agreed upon fight RULES were violated. For example: a positive drug test, or if the fight was mistakenly conducted under the wrong rules-rules that were not according to the fight contract.

For instance, if the ref mistakenly thought a modified Thai fight was a full thai fight, and the loser got KOd by an elbow in the opening minutes of the bout before the ref could be corrected between rounds.

In cases where there is a rules violation, the decision is simply set aside, and the bout is declared to be a no contest-we dont turn around and give the win to the person who was kod by the illegal elbow. We strongly favor a rematch to redress poor decisions. Titles should always be won in the ring-not by protests.

Our one exception: if a fight ends prematurely due to an accidental foul or headbutt-we go to the scorers cards as the were before the foul.If its an intentional, its ruked a DQ.

To reverse the judgment decisions of judges and refs in my considered opinion, is very unwise, and only begs the next question: what guarantee do we have that the second panel of judges will be more "fair" than the first panel?

We may as well follow your facetious suggestions to have an applause meter at ringside and let the audience's cheers pick the winner.Or let them press their buttons...

I don't see how the careless remarkes of the WPKL Chairman justify a tape review. Lets just assume for the sake of argument that he really WAS biased-So what?. He still didnt vote-so his opinion was immaterial to the outcome of the fight.

Lets also remember that If one of the three judges was biased in favor of Hart,(as someone has alleged) even though that would mean unfortunate judge selection, the original decision would still have been 2-1 favor of Hart- even if the allegedly biased judge's vote had been reversed, and actually cast in favor of Soumia.

As for who actually should have won, I would rather not say-I am not qualified as a judge-and it would be innapropriate for me to give my "fans opinion".


Posted: 2006-05-24 04:23:10
Dan - nice long detailed answer........but I meant Dan Green:) LOL
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-24 05:18:08
Thanx Eric.

Posted: 2006-05-24 06:05:09

Dan - nice long detailed answer........but I meant Dan Green:) LOL

===Damn! I thought somebody wanted my opinion!

But, yeah, I would love to get Dan Greeen's take of this. Obviously he's not gonna reply . But, he was one of the original judges, and according to Dave, all three of the overruled judges wrote the WPKL a nice letter.

I too would like to hear from all three of the repudiated judges-and ESPECIALLY the WPKL Chairman. He owes it to his organization and the KB community to explain his reasons for even entertaining a protest of a judgment call by officials at ringside. He really ought to come out of the bunker and make his reasons known. The memory of this isnt going away with the simplke passage of time.

I dont know of any other orgs that even consider objections to judges decisions. Because they know it would set a bad precedent, and open a Pandora's Box.

You can bet the next fighter who believes he/she was robbed at a WPKL event will be sending registered letters, video tapes, and conceivably even hiring lawyers-citing Hart vs Soumia as a precedent.

And the WPKL's only defense will have to be that their title is worthless; so there can be no monetary damages.


Posted: 2006-05-24 06:30:26
Either way, was happy to read your view and thought it made a lot of sense;)
Posted: 2006-05-24 06:45:14
so what do you all think should happen if a genuine terrible decision is made?
Posted: 2006-05-24 07:22:29
thats why there are 3 judges. if all 3 make a cockup then you have to take a long hard look at who is judging and why
Posted: 2006-05-24 07:32:31
but should there be an appeals procedure? What if there's evidence that one or more of the judges wasnt impartial?
Colin Payne
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:04:12
OK,I think one thing you have to accept in Thai and kick boxing is that unlike boxing its a very incestous business. Chances are the judges on any given show will either still be a trainer, fighter or promoter. Very few officials exist who only do that one job. In boxing you can only have one job as such, be it trainer, ref, etc.

Now if that is so chances are that one judge may have a relationship of some sort with say the trainer of one of the fighter. Its not ideal, but it's the way things are. All you can do is accept those judges will conduct themselves professionally, if not go elsewhere. But it will be the same with the next group.

Not really answered that last question but its a reality we all have to accept. I have also seen people reffing their own fighters, but would suggest that is too close a link to happen. I saw one high profile fight last year that worried me with regards to the the ref and the fighter invovled. That was stupidity really and should have been avoided, but me judging a fight involving the fighter of a friend or colleague...well I think you have to accept that or the whole system will break down. You just cannot avoid that unless we introduce a whole new 'professional' set of officials and there's not the money to do that.

Bottom line close decisions happen all the time, we have to accept as they say in other sports that the 'ref is always right'. Once we start to question that basic principal then we should pack up.
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:16:34
Good point Col, your the voice of reason as always!

I think its human nature that if your judging "your mates" fighter against a fighter you dont know, with a trainer you dont know, what are you gonna do? If its close, who you gonna side with? Its unfair but a fact of life.

Its a real shame, but what can be done about it?

Isnt that why the Gill V Vassallo fight was on neutral turf?
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:26:34
But in this instance that doesnt appear to be the case.The English judge has no connection to the English fighter and the other 2 judges were from Belgium and Holland.

In the video review all 3 judges were from Holland?
Brian Ritchie
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:35:11
And the judging was not split.
Brian Ritchie
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:36:08
meaning they all saw the fight the same. No single judge stood out.

Are all of the judges biased? Sure. Right.
Maybe they all were secretly best friends with Mary Hart.
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:42:05
PROFESSIONALISM is the word your looking for!
Colin Payne
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:42:14
your right and what I said was more a statement about the way things are, going back to the thread fully, I really can't see how you can say anything other than the WPKL f***ed up, pure and simple. No excuses for what happended at all.

Dan, do I judge a fighter fairly if I 'know' the trainer..YES 100%. Its a job and if you think of it like that then its OK and in fact most shows you know 'everyone' your probably 'know' both. I've been told more than a few times that I 'don't know whatI'm talking about' by a guy who will come up to me 3 months later (having his fighter won) saying that ' it was a good decision'.......If I was a dick the first time,surely I was the second LOL

I do feel very sorry for the original 3 judges on this. they have had their ethics questioned, I would suggest they do not work again for them.
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:42:27
or should I say, lack of.....
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:45:45
im not disputing your indifference when judging colin, your one of the few "good guys" out there mate!
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:53:47
DanUK........How very dare you......"One of the few good guys"........what are you insinuating.........;0)
Posted: 2006-05-24 08:59:01
well ok, you and Big Trev too Carl!!!!
Posted: 2006-05-24 09:33:07
not many decent judges in uk maybe a handful
Posted: 2006-05-24 10:47:06
It’s interesting reading this topic on how to handle such a situation and everybody’s views on it. But to me it’s more political then it has anything to do with the fight itself or fighters involved. For me it’s about a major srew up by a SB and “if” and “how” to fix it. More of an interesting study case on how to prevent and handle future screw up's.

But as said before. I really enjoyed the fight itself. My personal outcome was the same in Gorichem as it was at home with my DVD. I would have given the first 2 rounds to Mary and the last 3 to Soumia. So to me Soumia should have won the fight in the first place. (And I think the better part of the audience present had the same impression). But since the fight is available on DVD there is no need to discuss this. Everybody interested can watch and judge him/her self. I can only say, it’s worth buying the DVD because it was a great fight
even though both girls where poorly prepared. (Mary a short notice replacement with a long leave of absence from fighting, and Soumia just back from a Bangkok film shooting)

I’m looking forward to a rematch and hope it will be setup soon. Think a fully prepared Mary vs. a fully prepared Soumia can make the audience a big winner.
To me both are very much "worthy" being a World Champion.
Posted: 2006-05-24 16:25:44
The more i read this the more i don't even see the case for a rematch.
In fact the only course of action required appears to be an public apology from the WPKL official who's comments were innapropriatly voiced.
Posted: 2006-05-24 16:48:21
What does Mary Hart and her team feel about all this?
What does Soumia and her team feel about this also?

I guess it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks or feels,
the damage has been done.
Posted: 2006-05-25 04:52:41
As this one slips down the table of interest, we still have no comment from WPKL.

Todays news - tommorrows chip wrappers right?
Sad state of affairs me thinks!
Posted: 2006-05-25 08:27:23
just a hypothetical question. It seems in every contraversial situation, everyone has there own ideas about what should happen. So people think they should still fight??? I dont. I would hope that A would be stripped and the title awarded to B by default. What if A never turned up at all????
Ax Team
Posted: 2006-05-25 08:29:25
I created a new topic to discuss "Title Fight Weight Question". All posts have been moved there, please keep to the topic.

Ax Team
Posted: 2006-05-25 12:11:31
2006-05-25 09:52:41 ( time)


As this one slips down the table of interest, we still have no comment from WPKL.

Todays news - tommorrows chip wrappers right?

===I am not so sure this time. Its slipping down the page, but not from memory methinks. This may do the wpkl real lasting damage-unless they appoint a very articulate, and respected spokesperson to post here (or somewhere) in English, as well as in Dutch and explain exactly why they broke their own rules to allow an appeal on a UD. If there was an exception in their UD appeals rule, someone would have posted it by now on their behalf. They havent.So I dont think theres any written exception. They just did what the wanted to effect a convenient outcome.

Dan Green's silence is surprising. Maybe he simply doesnt want to burn bridges? (may be smart in the long run?)


Posted: 2006-05-25 13:06:36
Smart? He's being slated in public for doing a job.
Posted: 2006-05-25 13:27:36
dan wont talk on a public forum
Posted: 2006-05-25 17:54:20
Fair Do's
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-25 18:12:58
For those that are only following this on Ax i just posted this on another forum....

Hi Eric and everyone else.

Fistly I would like to point out to everyone that I know Eric and will say that I can assure everyone that he is not part of Soumias team and his opinions should be read with merit and as his own which he is fully entitled to.

But aside from that I disagree with the reasons that Mary was stripped of this title.

Firstly Eric, you said (to someone that posted ont the other forum) ...

... "I do not know what your grudge is with Soumia's management. I think most coaches/management would have filed a protest here. There was a good and legit reason for it. And if a protest is filed, it's up to the SB to look if they take it into consideration or not. So I really can't see why you blame Soumia's management for filing a protest"

I dont blame them for "attempting" to file a protest if they hadnt read the rules before doing so. But they should have been told, "Sorry a protest is not allowed as it was a unanimous descision"

The jury could also have been objected to before the bout but Soumias management chose to accept the appointed jurors.

A glib comment after the fight by a WPKL official that Soumia was too young may have offended Soumias team but they should have responded by pointing out that Soumia is old enough to compete for the title under the WPKL rules and in fact everyone knew her age and it was with this knowledge that her management chose to put her forward for it and the WPKL sanctioned it prior to the event.

If things dont go the way you like it it hard luck, you cant change the rules after the event.

It is irrellevant what anybody said or did after the descision on the night because both camps agreed the rules and the jurors before the first bell and they have to accept that both camps agreed jurors and agreed rules gave the Title to Mary Hart.

Had mary won a split descision a protest would be allowed but as it was unanimous then the protest is illegal and Mary is still champion under WPKL rules as they are published at this second in time.
Posted: 2006-05-25 21:10:48
Everytime I look at this long emotional thread on my board and also on this board,it seems reasons for the protests are being advanced other than simply that Soumia disgagreed with the first panels' decision.

If I now understand correctly, the *real* reason the protest was made
(and taken into consideration by the WPKL Chairman) was because of what the WPKL chairman himself said after the fight.

And the suspicion of Soumia's management that the wpkl chairman's after the fight comments revealed a bias against Soumia by the WPKL, and that this bias by the Chariman, then influenced the first judges towards a pre-fight bias
which calls into question the first three judges' integrity and objectivity.

Therefore, since the first jurors were possibly biased, new jurors had to be empaneled; and the fight had to be judged again by tape replay with unbiased jurors.

Is that a fair characterization of the reasons for the protest?

Posted: 2006-05-26 02:19:59
so has the WPKL withdrawn from stripping Mary of the title?
...or does the current decision/thread title stand?
Posted: 2006-05-26 03:42:02
WPKL have not commented anywhere, as far as I can see
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-26 03:47:34
The comment that the first judges were possibly biased is ridiculas. I think that stems from someone making a wild suggestion that Dan Green is Marys boyfriend

Posted: 2006-05-26 04:48:02
are u having a laugh dave? who said that rubbish? Anyway i dont care if Mary Hart was dan greens daughter im sure he could still judge it fairly as it doesnt benefit a fighter to win a fight they shouldnt have as they will end up fighting someone better next time and possibly get hurt
Posted: 2006-05-26 16:26:25
Dave Jackson writes:

The comment that the first judges were possibly biased is ridiculas.

===Yes it now seems the protest was aimed at the jury itself, and NOT just at the decision. They (Soumia's maaaanagement are saying the jury was corrupt from the beginning. To be fair Mr Green was NOT mentioned by name. It was the entire jury that Soumia's management felt was corrupt or biased.

Below in quotation marks, I pasted in from another board part of what Eric R wrote about his personal understanding of the WPKL statement. So yes, It seems they did actually make a statement on the Dutch BB's

And if Eric corectly iunterpreted the WPKL statement it seems that the WPKL statement seems to say clearly that Soumia's management was questioing the original jury because they felt the original jurors were either inherently biased against Soumia and in favor of Mary Hart, or they were unduly influenced by the bias of the WPKL Chairman.

If that is the basis of the protest, its a new wrinkle. I thought they were only protesting because they thought the jury did not judge the fight accurately -which provided absolutely no grounds whatsoever for a protest.

Heres part of what what Eric had to say about the WPKL statement:

"....the statement as I read it claims the protest was aimed at the jury, not the fight. And I can't read anything on that in the WPKL rules. (Don't even know if this has ever happened before)
So it's up to the WPKL how to interpreted that and judge if it's a legit claim or not. They could have indeed dismissed it. Statement says they examined it and considered it legit...."

Posted: 2006-05-26 16:30:04
Have I missed the point or would you only accuse a Jury of being corrupt if a fight didnt go your way. It changes nothing and means the same thing as accusing them of not being able to judge.

Still Jokers mate!
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-26 17:02:45
It is stil irrelevant. The jury was agreed by both camps prior to the fight. If Soumia had won would her management team have still suggested it was not a fair jury after the fight based on the comments about Soumia being young.
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-26 17:07:05
Since it has never happened before that a unanimous descision has been allowed to be appealed, would it now be possible on the basis of legal precedent for Marys team to put in a 2nd protest based on the fact that the 2nd jury was all Dutch and potentially biased by the presence of Soumias team.
Lefty O'Drool
Posted: 2006-05-26 17:33:14
"Since it has never happened before that a unanimous descision has been allowed to be appealed, would it now be possible on the basis of legal precedent for Marys team to put in a 2nd protest based on the fact that the 2nd jury was all Dutch and potentially biased by the presence of Soumias team."

Yes, and then a new jury will be impaneled. Two traditional Dutch folklorists will listen to an audio tape of the fight, paying close attention to the cheering of the crown and the sounds of the punches and kicks. The folklorists will then stand in front of the new jury and re-enact the fight as "Baanopstekker" interpretive dance. After the end of the five acts, the jury will render its final decision, and the belt will be awarded to one of the two fighters. This ruling, as all WPKL rulings, may be of course appealed for any reason at any time by any party.
Posted: 2006-05-26 17:40:02
Carl, It appears on closer examination of their statement that The WPKL people are saying the UD is not what is being protested-its the basic qualifications of jury itself that are being protested.

I think thats extremely legalistic, and to me seems like fancy footwork to get around an embarrassing provision in their rules- no protests of Unanimous decisions.

The distinction may well be artificial and no more than decimation of hairs; but, they are actually questioning the qualifications of the jury; NOT The decision.

So, that is the way the WPKL is justifying their decision to entertain a protest without violating their no protest of UD's rule. Fancy footwork
or legitimate distinction? That's the question.

Whatever, its an attack upon the innate fairness of the three original jurors.
And they havent given us the resoan WHY they belive the three jurors were not fair minded and professional.

I think they owe us and the jurors that much.


Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-26 18:01:27
Ok...So on what grounds did the WPKL originally appoint their Jury?

Also is this the first time thes 3 jurors have ever been used by the WPKL.?

Bear in mind that some of us know the identity of all the jurors and their standing in the European fight community and therefore it may not be a fair question to ask members of this board to comment on but it is a fair question to ask the WPKL.
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-26 18:05:11
I also think that the time to protest a Jury is before the fight not after.

Can you imagine the mayhem if that were allowed.....

...."We lost the hometown descision, therefore the Jury must have been biased. We dont dispute that we may have been beaten but we dispute the jury because the local crowd thought the local fighter won?"

It just gets worse
Posted: 2006-05-26 18:37:29
Ok...So on what grounds did the WPKL originally appoint their Jury?

===I dont know. But, I would assume that the three jurors were
presumed qualified and fair minded, by the wpkl. I am fairly certain
that Dan Green has worked wpkl fights before, and is well known to them.===

Also is this the first time thes 3 jurors have ever been used by the WPKL.?

===see above===

Bear in mind that some of us know the identity of all the jurors and their standing in the European fight community and therefore it may not be a fair question to ask members of this board to comment on but it is a fair question to ask the WPKL

====Yes, I totally agree. They also owe the three repudiated judges that much-a public explanation of the basis for their repudiation-since their repudiation was public, and their integrity was publicly called into question.

I too, would also like to know what actual *facts* led them to believe the Belgian and Ducth judges were suspect-and I don't believe they have been very forthcoming on that. If they have no facts, basically they are setting a precedent to accept any protest from any vanquished contestant on the tenuous and unprovable grounds that the judges objectivity were "suspect".

In this case, It would not be sufficient to justify the protest on the grounds of bias, simply because *any* one judge was a friend of Ms Hart

That would not be enough. Son that isnt even necessry to discuss- simply becasue if any one of the three judges votes were over ruled or discarded the scores would still be 2-0, or at worst, 2-1 in favor of Hart.

Therefore; the WPKL needs to tell us and the three repudiated judges why EACH judge was biased- and what facts came to light AFTER the fight that led the WPKL to agree that were suddenly suspect.

Suffice it to say, the WPKL really has a lot of explaining to do-regardless of the grounds proffered for sustaining Soumia's protest.

Posted: 2006-05-27 04:50:27
OK, points taken on all sides. But let me ask you this:
1. If all three judges are so incompetant that the bout has to be re-judged by video (still a shocking rule) - will they be used again by WPKL? Of course they will. Dan Green was a judge when my fiasco took place and he has subsequently judged again. He is clearly able to do the job but apparently not now! Are the three judges so bad that a second jury has to be called in? Can they really all be incorrect? Or was it a close fight with opinions (as many are)?

Dave calls it absolutely right when he says do we get another jury to sit in judgement on the second jury. This is what I said earlier in a more sarcastic turn or phrase.
If you open the doors to this kind of appeal then it can be endless. For as long as people don't agree (and they won't), they must have every right to appeal continuosly, as one party was allowed to appeal in this way in the first place.

Dan, I take your point about the judges, not the decison being in question, but all roads lead to the same place.
If you don't like the judges you ask for replacements before the fight not once you have heard the decision.
If you are not aware of the judges credentials, you ask about them - before the bout.
Anyone can find a reason to make a fuss (however you want to dress it up) when things don't go their way!

There has clearly been nothing blatent here with regards to dis-honest judging.
And for the credibilty of the judges to be brought into question when a second jury could not agree unanimously (that is right is'nt it?), what more can you say.

For the WPKL to allow this whole procedure to take place is comical.
Posted: 2006-05-27 07:26:06
Carl- I just wanted make sure the WPKL's reasoning was actually understood by everyone on this board; since I made the first post, and inaccurately assumed that Soumia's management were simply unhappy with the judgment calls of the three jurors-which made them appear to be nothing more than vanquished soreheads.

But, in fact, their complaint goes much deeper than that, and strikes at the very heart of the entire fight process. Because they are alleging corruption by, (or of) the three original fight judges-and thus the whole judging process.

And therefore this goes far beyond the issue of just the rule about UD's not being subject to re-examination.

I believe strongly that The wpkl owes each of the three repudiated judges a *public* explanation as to why each of them, as an individual, was publicy discredited.

I would also like very much to be told *exactly* what *facts* came to light AFTER the fight which were not known to the wpkl BEFORE the fight, which led the wpkl to disclaim these three judges, after they originally were satisified with them.

This is the only information which would tell us if the wpkl was justified in throwing out these three jurors, and rejudging the fight with a second panel-or not.

But, to date I don't believe the wpkl has been very open or forthcoming on that.

And to now, simply dismiss these serious allegations with a general statement that there *may* have been some vague reason to believe that one or more of the judges *may* have possibly been slightly biased, is totally unacceptable.

By the way, It would also not be sufficient to justify the protest on the grounds of bias, if only ONE judge was found to be biased-because if the one biased judge's scorecard was discarded, the verdict would still be 2-0, in favor of Ms Hart. So we need to have facts which show why each *individual* judge was found after the fight to be unfit to judge.

Posted: 2006-05-27 08:55:39
Good call Dan.
Posted: 2006-05-27 18:24:11
id like to appeal some other results from shows now the flood has started
Lefty O'Drool
Posted: 2006-05-27 19:38:42
I have seen the video and I call it a draw. If I can get two other people to agree with me I think we can assert a new official outcome.

Watch and Decide!

Michelle E65
Posted: 2006-05-27 20:47:31
Wow, I am amazed how much interest this topic has has raised. I guess the actions of that sanctioning body speaks for themselves. Not very impressive, I'd say...
Neil Holden
Posted: 2006-05-28 02:33:06
Potential promoters that may have considered, or be considering, using the WPKL in the near future could now choose not to.

Also too are the further inmplications that should a promoter still decide to use WPKL, possibly some fighters may not wish to contest WPKL titles in case this happens to them.

This will be more damaging the longer the WPKL let things continue, and it needs closure asap!
Michelle E65
Posted: 2006-05-28 09:35:41
Agreed, but it's very doubtful if that will happen. For an outsider looking in, it looks like they are having trouble admitting and fixing the mistake/problem. Just a thought...
Posted: 2006-05-28 16:57:26
The wpkl need to adopt an absolutely no protest rule
like the one we have at WIKBA-and that most responsible Orgs
already have..

Finality, stability, and reasonable predictablity are
absolutely essential for sanctioning bodies if they want
respect and credibility.

Rematches solve almost all of these "we wuz robbed" or
"it was a hometown decision" problems.

Unfortunately, they shot themselves in the foot,
because they wanted to control the results of the
fight; after an international three judge panel
did the unimaginable; and ruled against
the home town fighter.

That would actually have been kind of funny
if their response to a minor problem
(a damn fool statement by the chairman)
were not so irresponsible and thus damaging
to the sport.

Right now, theres a lot of dirty politics and intrigue
in the Netherlands' KB world-and the vicious
infighting there is really hurting their image.

But, to solve this current protest abuse problem, which
is NOT going away, they need to tell the world EXACTLY
WHY they believe the 3 judges (they themslves selected)
were biased-OR-apologize to the 3 discredited judges;
give the title back to Hart; and call for a
rematch-with NO Sanctioning fee charged to the
promoter.(since they obviously didnt give the promoter his money's
worth the first time)

Unfortunately the WPKL chairman showed his abysmal ignorance of
womens MT and KB and current international standards
when he suggested that Soumia really wasnt qualified
or only marginally qualified.(Why then did he sanction it?)

But thatn was only the beginning of his problems.
Then he showed showed himself to be a GRADE A bungler
when he used (read: exploited) his own ill advised
statements to justify a protest that alleged that his own organization
was probably biased-along with the well known judges they selected

How pathetic is THAT???


PS As for the fighters, I believe BOTH fighters were
very well qualified to fight for a world title.
WIKBA would sanction world title bouts for either
or both of these two fine fighters.

But, they would both need to understand
that any judges decision would be final
and they would have to fight under the
world standard rules for MT: 5x3.

Lefty O'Drool
Posted: 2006-05-28 20:25:36
Soumia is a fine fighter, but she's a 17 year-old kid too - no way is she the driving force behind the reversal. It's a shame that the adults who surround and support her are dragging her into this shameful soap opera. I'm sure she, like most fighters, would rather settle things in the ring. Now, thanks to all the backroom shennanigans, her name is unfortunately smeared along with the others.
Michelle E65
Posted: 2006-05-28 23:05:27
True, I feel sorry for her...I have already read a couple of comments that smear her. I also feel bad for Mary, losing her title that way...Not very ethical if you ask me....
Posted: 2006-05-28 23:11:47
Lefty O'Drool writes:

Soumia is a fine fighter, but she's a 17 year-old kid too -no way is she the driving force behind the reversal. It's a shame that the adults who surround and support her are dragging her into this shameful soap opera. I'm sure she, like most fighters, would rather settle things in the ring. Now, thanks to all the backroom shennanigans, her name is unfortunately smeared along with the others.

====She done a real diservice, by this.

What she should have experienced and learned was two things:

1. Adverse questionable decisions happen to everyone who fights.
They will not always be fair-from your perspective, and may even be bitterly painful.

2. The remedy for what you feel is an unfair, or biased decision is to shake it off and become stronger-not file a a protest or pitch a tantrum.
Instead, ask for a rematch.

This will definitley happen to her again if she fights long enough; and the next time, she will most likely have to deal with the reality that life is not always fair. And it will be a little harder for her next time, because she will naturally protest again-becasue in her first brush with a painful reality she was taught by others that raising hell will make it go away.

Lefty O'Drool
Posted: 2006-05-29 00:12:37
Sage advice, Dan.

Remember Lewis v. Holyfield (I)? That draw was one of the biggest robberies I've seen!

Lewis got a rematch and took care of business with Holyfield, grabbed four titles, defended them all and lost only one fight (which he quickly avenged) through his retirement.

Bottom line, he took the bad decision and put it behind him and saved his fighting for the ring. A good example, I think, of how to deal with disappointment.

As a side note, I am NOT in any way claiming that there was anything wrong with the Soumia/Hart original decision! That's slowly turning into an implied assumption here and I take no position on that at all. The decision is what it is.
Posted: 2006-05-29 02:11:04
I feel sorry for both fighters and the three judges I would hate to have my name dragged through the mud like that for doing my job. I would also not want to accept a title that came to me through a reversed decision like the ones described. I wouldnt want a title on a technicality, and I would be embarrased if my trainer had to lodge complaints to secure wins for me. So what if one dickhead said she was too young, she was out there holding her own and it sounds like it was a close fight so her inexperience wasnt holding her back, it always sounds a bit suss when someone complains after they have lost. Soumia is still young but the damage is done now, who is going to want to fight a fighter who has a reputation for crying its not fair the system is against me? Who will believe that judges who judge her future fights are not edging her way out of caution that they will be dragged through the mud by her team if she doesnt win? What pride can you have in a win or a title for a fight that no-one can agree on the winner? Mary got bollocksed by the reversal but it is Soumia who will pay for it in her ability to get future fights. I bet she doesnt have the same feeling for her belt that she would have if she had made a convincing show of earning it and left no doubt in anyones mind that she deserved it, it will probably be feeling a little empty and meaningless. Poor kid shes the one who got the worse end of it even if she does hold the title alot of people dont believe she won.
Posted: 2006-05-29 02:19:51
Guess what?

I just found out from a Dutch friend
that all wpkl world title fights are
required to be class A, 5 rounds of 3 minutes duration.
(according to his translation of article 21 of the wpkl rules.

This fight was TWO MINUTE ROUNDS.
(I just got through watching the dvd)

That means this fight was
not even a legal world title fight to begin with
according to wpkl rules!!

Therefore; A no-contest ruling
and a rematch is the
only honorable (and also conveniently face saving)
way out for all concerned.
see: 21
a world-title-fight A-clas: 5 rounds, 3 minutes

Mary Hart should demand a no-contest
ruling and a rematch.That is the only
fair and face saving way out of this mess for the WPKL
at this point.

Posted: 2006-05-30 04:22:16
Still Jokers!
Posted: 2006-05-30 04:52:12
loving the video lefty nice 1
Posted: 2006-05-30 17:48:02

Still Jokers!


It was not even a regulation fight according to their
own specifications of 5x3. it was 5x2.

This it did not qualify as a legal world title fight,
aside from the fact the jury was overuled for no good reason.

They should have made it 5x3 as their own rules require

(and stuck with the original judges decision.)

I wonder which fighter could not do the three minute rounds?

You KNOW that had something to do with the decision to make it a non regulation 5x2 fight. Why else would they waive their three minute round requirements???

I don't believe I have ever seen such bungling, and then pusillanimous caving in to pressure by a sanctioning body.

BTW: I have heard form several people inhthe NL that Soumia's management (Force Management) and her gym (Gym International) have had a strained relationship with Luc Jensen, who was one of the three discredited judges. So why they accepted him in the first place, without saying anything is hard to understand-UNLESS they were just so sure Soumia would easily beat Mary Hart who had been inactive for almost 2 years. I can see why they would think that-Soumia is quite impressive and hasa bright future-if she doesnt get caufght uo in any more controversy.

I'll have more on that and some other intersting matters soon. I am getting lots of e-mail on this from Holland...

Its a real shame that everyone in Holland can't just bury the hatchet, make peace, and work together; because there are so many talented women kickboxers in the Netherlands-it could be a mecca for the sport

It really appears that The WPKL totally dropped to their knees and rolled over after some pretty strong pressure. And now they look simply pathetic.

This story isnt going away....there's much more.


Brian Ritchie
Posted: 2006-05-30 19:39:01
Does anyone have ANY contact with WPKL?
Posted: 2006-05-31 02:43:29
who is the UK representative for the WPKL?

Shouldnt they be "fighting the corner" for their fighter?
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2006-05-31 03:06:16
Noi, the UK representative is Dan Green. He was one of the 3 original and now disqualified jurors.

I am not sure that he will comment on here as he hasnt been on Ax for over 6 months but as far as fighting the corner of the UK fighter is concerned I dont think he is now in a position to do that in public but rest assured he is working hard for Harts team against this descision.
Posted: 2006-05-31 04:16:31
ahhhh....I am sure DG will be doing his utmost!
Posted: 2006-05-31 12:16:38
If anyone is interested, Lahcen Oumghar is the name of the wpkl “chairman”.

I got the following letter from someone in the Netherlands.
I dont know whether I can verify, or agree with everything contained therein,
but I know one of the allegations to be absolutely true.

Other allegationss i am not sure about.I have no way to verify-as yet.

But, I think this letter demonstrates that the wpkl has grave credibility and image problems within the Netherlands, and now thanks to the Hart Soumia fiasco, throughout the world as well. They desperately need to mend some fences. as do other parties mentioned herein...

If the wpkl doesnt come forward and admit their mistakes, including the willful violation of their own rules to efrdfect a desried resulkt-and rectify this situation-they are finished as a credible sanctioning body.

Most people will forgive those who admit their mistakes (wpkl)and promise not to repeat them. I know I would.

But, if the wpkl thinks they can just go into seclusion without any explanation for their own flagrant rules violations, and then
come back when things “blow over” and resume “business as usual” I believe they are in a for a very rude awakening.

Here’s a letter from a Netherlands based KB trainer and gym manager.
It does NOT come form anyone affiliated with any of the fighters mentioned
by name in the letter. It is posted here unedited, (except for one possibly defamatory sentence redacted at the very end of the letter.)
Mary Hart as yet dethroned as world champion!
What’s going on behind the scenes? Now it’s time for the truth!
The Dutch Force Management/Gym International (Soumia Team) of Soumia Albalhajaa sure has got power and influence!

Not only did it manage to sabotage Linda Ooms’ World Championship title-match versus Shibata in the USA in November 2005, it also put so much pressure on the Dutch WPKL-federation that it turned Soumia’s lost match against Mary Hart into a victory!

The WPKL has lost all credibility by declaring its own referees incompetent! Hart is simply dethroned, has to return her belt and is invited to try again against Soumia! If I were her and all the other fighters in the world, I’d think very hard, before deciding to fight Soumia.

Who will she be fighting: Soumia or the Force Management/Gym International/Soumia Team? In the last case the fight will be lost before it even begins. Or will people be tempted by big money? Ridiculous and very dangerous developments in this type of sport.

Is Soumia, a ‘product’ of this Force Management, still capable of achieving things on her own merits?

According to the Force Management she is even asked to act in a Thai action movie. This is rather odd, since no one in Thailand had ever heard of her! This ‘actress’ and ‘worldstar’ fought 2 B-matches, followed by only 3 A-fights (organised and manipulated by the Force Management/Gym International); her first match in the A-league against B-fighter and sure loser Janny Smid made her Dutch Champion. And now- retroactively –she is manipulated World Champion WPKL in five 2 minutes- rounds (Soumia has never fought five 3 minutes-rounds!) No one mentions the undecided second A-game in Belgium against Rebecca Donnely (UK) and the loss against the strong opponent Eva Neranjo from Spain should not be taken into account at all, according to the Force Management!

Here’s evidently a clear case of serious manipulations and false rankings and these are all presented on Women Kickboxing and other Fight-sites, without batting an eyelid. The Force Management/Gym International is buying its way, at all costs!

It also acts as sponsor and promoter for big kickbox-shows in The Netherlands and federations better remain on good terms with them. The well known Dutch Federation WFCA promised Linda Ooms a European title-match against an English opponent (maybe Mary?) in Druten, The Netherlands, in June ( Pressure from the Force Management dictated that Ooms could only fight if she were to oppose Soumia. In the end the Dutch federation WFCA gave in: no title-match for Linda Ooms!

It is clear that Ooms wouldn’t have stood a chance against Soumia, whatever the real outcome of the match would have been. Rumours are that amateur Ooms is still being sabotaged and that she therefore will never fight ‘professional’ Soumia.

Federations and gyms however can’t afford not to co-operate with the rich and powerful Force Management. One is tempted to compare all this to Mafia- practices. Which federation will be the next to be manipulated?

Manager: Force Management E.J.F. Piguillet

Piguillet owns a very mighty, powefull and rich firm with factories all over the world.

Firm: Piguillet & Zn.
Weg en Bos 5,
2661 DG Bergschenhoek

Force Management is the sponsor and manager of Gym International.

Soumias’ gym is Gym International,[redacted the rest of this sentence]

Posted: 2006-05-31 13:30:11
Wasn't planning to comment anymore at this topic. Think all has been said.

But this e-mail is just plain bullshit. This "Netherlands based KB and gym manager" should be very much ashamed at himself. Had he been living in the USA he would probably been facing a slander lawsuite. Attacking Soumia personally in this and taken advantage of a dreadfull situation for his own (fighters) benefit. Disgusting!!!!

No need even to defend Force Management or Edward Piguillet here. Anybody can do research on him or FM. They'll find this e-mail is one big lie.
Manipulating WFCA??? Please talk to Joop Ubeda. Most of the people know him as one of Hollands most respected referee's doing i.e. Super League fights. Joop is a key figure in WFCA. Joop being manipulated or mussled by Edward and FM???
Maybe on April's foolsday....

I do not have any ties with Edward, nor FM. But I can vouch for him as a decent respectfull person. (And I don't owe him any money or favors).

The WPKL Soumia/Hart mess is a WPKL screw-up. It has nothing to do with Soumia nor FM. And btw, the wpkl chairman revered to wasn't Lahcen Oumghar, it was Mr. Fernhout. (As also was discribed in "De Nieuwe Revue" weekly magazine)

Bottomline is, here is one trainer manipulating the international readers of this board by personally attacking Soumia. THAT IS WRONG AND DISGRACEFULL!!!!
Taking advantage of this situation.
Soumia is a splendid new talent and I'm happy to see we still have such great talents in Holland. Anyone disagree please see the fight video.
I think Soumia has a bright future in Womenkickboxing and anyone dismissing her over lies is just pathatic. People making their own fighters benifit over such a situation even worse...
Posted: 2006-06-01 13:36:45
As it slips slowly away with most people happy to appear on their future events. No answers, no resolution, no nothing, The wpkl live to fight another day. 2morrows chip paper......................:(
Posted: 2006-06-03 17:21:39
Posted: 2006-06-03 17:37:04
Three interesting things to watch for:

1. It will be really interesting to see if
the three discredited judges
will also soon forget, and
resume working for future wpkl events...

(BTW who was that third Dutch judge?
we know the English judge was Dan Green,
and the Belgian Judge was Luc Jensen)

2. It will also be interesting to see if
they continue to put on 5x2 womens world title fights
which are illegal under article 21 of the wpkl rules
(which apparenly they dont take seriously)

3.It will be interesting
to see if their actions will encourage more protests
based on biased judges, etc...

Michelle E65
Posted: 2006-06-04 10:44:48
Are we still talking about this...? Chances are, if they haven't done anything about this by now, they probably won't. They had their chance to make things right but I doubt it will happen...If they don't care about being fair or unbiased, that's their problem, but I think this has been talked about to death. If people still decide to deal with them, then I guess they really didn't learn anything, did they?
Posted: 2006-06-06 07:40:21
quite right
Lefty O'Drool
Posted: 2006-06-06 09:49:46
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Posted: 2006-06-07 15:41:50
i like that quote!
The Highlander
Posted: 2006-06-07 16:26:15
Here's a thought!!!

Set the 2 of them up to fight for another World Title under a more reputable sanctioning body.
Simple solution!!!
Posted: 2006-06-07 17:25:36
michelle e65
i agree,it has been talked to death this subject and i wouldnt say just because nothing been done about it doesnt mean things arent going on behind the scenes to rectify this injustice. i can assure you i dont think mary hart would have hashad enough of this subject. thai boxing needs good publicity as it isgrowing stronger and stronger and is on our screens more and more and if things like this carry on at the highest level,world level,it wont help the growth in the uk from amateur,c class through to world level.
Michelle E65
Posted: 2006-06-07 20:06:26 have made an excellent point. On a positive note, I've actually turned my attention to other things, like the competition in Thailand where two of my teammates have won gold and all the rest but 1 won silver and bronze medals. Congrats to the Canadian Team for doing what they do best. A special congrats goes out to Sandra Bastian for getting a gold and being awarded best female fighter of the competition.
Posted: 2006-06-08 10:32:18
thats a great award for sandra to win.

still no news over clarifying/rectifying this situation????????
Michelle E65
Posted: 2006-06-08 13:49:32
Not that I know of....sorry. I've kind of given up on the whole thing.
Posted: 2006-06-13 13:52:01
Any News?....:)
Posted: 2006-06-15 17:55:05
The Highlander writes:

Here's a thought!!!

Set the 2 of them up to fight for another World Title under a more reputable sanctioning body.

===That is the only realistic solution.

The wpkl is finished anyway. Their credibilty is zero
and nobody wants to fight for their title.==
Posted: 2006-06-16 05:04:50
Bet they do:) short memories!
Posted: 2006-06-22 09:47:09
Posted: 2007-03-09 02:53:32
Sorry, couldnt sleep so scrolled through some old news.

I might have missed it but just wondering if these jokers ever dealt with this situation correctly......or did they just wait for everyone to forget about it?
Posted: 2007-03-09 03:05:04
About what??


Yea i would be interested to know also.....

Dosent realy matter thiugh i think Mary is the best female fighter out there at the mo anyway!
Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-09 06:46:15
I just read through 90% of that and wanted to add a postscript.

On this very forum we have debated under fights to judge the criteria by which we score a fight. Notably Tony, Liam,MARK L, Sid and myself. Whilst we have not always agreed on the result. We all universally agree the place for a decision is sat ring side. With the benefit of rewind, scene scroll and replay a new fight can emerge. But notably only from one perspective.

If indeed you disagree with a decision. put the record straight with a rematch.

On a personal note. All World Title Fights regardless of gender ought to contested over 5 x 3min rounds. Full rules or not is a decision for the trainer and fighter. Certainly I would never want to try to dilute the terms of engagement and always insisted Rachael fought full rules 5 x 3's. Due to a conflict (or at least as I saw it) in loyaties I will no longer promote or act as Rachaels Agent/trainer however i can still comfortably state Rachael would agree totally with my comments.
Posted: 2007-03-09 19:00:52
To Carl: Yes the WPKL is hoping everyone will forget
that unprecedented sham-but nobody else has, and
frankly I doubt whether they ever will.
I heard many months ago that Dan Green was working "behind the scenes"
to get the WPKL to do the right thing and give Mary's title back.
But his efforts were clearly fruitless, as anyone could |
easily have predicted.

On my message board, the WPKL World VCR Title fight
comes up almost every single time there is even a rumor of a Soumia fight.
I had to delete the latest thread there because it got so vicious,
emotional, and destructive.

But removing the threads really doesnt help veyr muchto erase the bitterness over the WPKL's lack of integrity.

It is coming back to bite Soumia over and over, which is sad;
because it isnt even her fault

It was a stupid decision by her management to try and undo
what happened in the ring with a vcr. It damaged Soumia, and also
destroyed the credibility, prestige, and reputation of the WPKL, and reduced them to the status of fools and incompetents- who will cave at the first sign of pressure.

IMO, Soumia desperately needs to rematch Mary Hart in a 5x3 full rules fight to
really settle this in the eyes of the public who think her vcr title is bogus.

The ONLY remedy for an unfair decision is always
a REMATCH-never a "protest" -unless written rules were violated.

there is never any excuse for reversing a judges decision simply because one side thinks a fight was unfairly decided, orbecaseu as in this case, the spokeman for the WPKL, was suspected of being "biased" becasue he mentioe3nd Soumia was very young to be holding a world title. Whats that ill advised statement got to do with the UD for Hart by 3 international judges???????

What's even more ridiculous about that protests is that the WPKL spokesman didnt make the decision in the first place!!Yet the protest was based on his "alledgedly" biased comments after the fight.

It was three MT judges from 3 different countries who made the decsion unanimous for Mary Hart. so even if Dan Green was biased towards Mary Hart, the other two judges still agreed with him and rendedered the decision UNANIMOUSLY to Mary Hart. So throw out Dan Green's ballot, and its still a 2-0 decision for Hart!!

And get this, unanimous decsions are not
even subject to a protest by the WPKL's own rules!!

@ Dave Croft: Any so called "world MT Title Fight" for men or women, that uses 2 minute rounds-is a BS title, pure and simple. Thats not even open to debate.

Back to the Soumia vs Hart World VCR Title fight:

To be fair to 18 year old Soumia, who has been the unfortunate
victim of a stupid decision to protest her loss to Mary Hart,I will also mention that Soumia recently defeated Mary Hart in the Netherlands
in a 3x2 k-1 rules fight in an 8 woman tournament.

Some of her supporters believe this vindicates the WPKL's decision to reverse the decision in their first fight and take the title from Mary and give it to Soumia. And so I am mentioning that on their behalf.


Posted: 2007-03-09 21:56:07
Dave Croft, I was agreeing with you btw about the three min rds for world title fights.

I post this because in re-reading, it read like i thought you were
arguing for 2 min rds which I knew you were not. You made it quite clear, and thank you for that.


Posted: 2007-03-10 05:27:44
Nice to hear from you Dan. Good comments. As expecetd from WPKL then.

Dan am trying to contact you through the site but having trouble. Could you PM me please on a different matter.

Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-10 09:00:53
its ok dan i understood the point. thanks anyway.
Posted: 2007-03-10 09:41:22
im from nz we went to amsterdam in nov last year we brought our girl michelle preston,,i saw the fight between mary and soumiou,,mary won the fight quite clearly,,but wasnt givin the win ,,i think everyone was surprised,,any all i can say mary get her on your home turf and knock her out or some wher nutral ,,cause you were robed,,,good luck ,,,
Posted: 2007-03-10 16:29:06
Don't know how you score a fight in NZ then. Was at the fight with some friends from GB and some from Holland aswell. We all agreed on the outcome, and personally I haven't seen nor spoken anybody who had given that last fight to Mary. You are the first one. Too bad the footage still isn't posted yet, but I thought it was pretty clear Soumia took the win in November's fight.
Posted: 2007-03-10 19:45:40
Eric writes: Too bad the footage still isn't posted yet, but I thought it was pretty clear Soumia took the win in November's fight.

===Eric, are there any dvds for sale of this event? if so, where can we order them?==


Posted: 2007-03-11 01:37:06
The "who won, who did'nt" debate is not the issue. It is the practices, methods and integrity of the WPKL which is in question (again)!
Posted: 2007-03-11 21:56:43
Posted: 2007-03-11 23:08:21

The "who won, who did'nt" debate is not the issue. It is the practices, methods and integrity of the WPKL which is in question (again)!

===Exactly! It doesnt matter whether the three repudiated wpkl judges had it right. Who won any fight is always a matter of opinion- if there's no stoppage.

I will say that I had Soumia winning three of the five rds-based solely on my dvd viewing fo the fight, and based on the fact that I am much more experienced at viewing boxing and therefore predisposed to place more value on punches landed-than kicks. (Soumia easily landed more effective punches)imo.

plus, i dont like or appreciate what I consider "excessive" clinching. And that's the one area where Hart clearly dominated in that fight.

So, obviously i am not a qualified person to judge a MT fight.

Whatever. the three international judges who were each seated on a different sides of the ring rendered a unanimous decision for Mary Hart. And therefore, that decision should not have been overturned.

The WPKL violated two of their own rules (enumerated below)and have therefore shown themselves to be a disreputable, unethical, and incompetent, sanctioning body.

1. WPKL Rules call for three minute rounds for all World Titles-this fight was only 2 minute rds. It was therefore closer to a glorified skirmish.
and it was NOT a legal "World Title" fight in the first place-based on the WPKL's own rules.

2. WPKL does not allow protests on unanimous decisions. The decision was unanimous for Hart. So there was no legal basis for a challenge.

3. There is no WPKL rule authorizing protests based on "biased" statements
of anyone-whether they were judges or not.

Therefore: Any promoter who uses the wpkl is setting himself up for question also.

Mary Hart and the three publically humiliated judges should sue them, just to expose this very corrupt organization.

It will be interesting to see if these three judges, Dan Green, Luc Jensen, and the 3rd (unknown to me) judge will have the self respect and INTEGRITY to never again work a fight for the WPKL-unless they each receive a full written and public apology.

I hope Soumia's management will see the necessity for rematching Mary Hart under full thai rules at 5x3, outside the UK or the Netherlands, with international judges, and a reputable sanctioning body such as the WMC.

Thats the only way to disassociate her name from this sorry mess and that meaningless belt- and move on with her promising career.


Posted: 2007-03-12 00:00:14
Pisand writes:

Google Video - FIGHT

===Thanks Pisand, just watched it twice.

I had it as follows:

rd one-draw

rd two- Hart narrowly won

rd three- Hart won decisively

No way soumia won that fight. imo

Hate to say it: hometown decision.


Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-14 10:46:09
If I may without offending add my two penneth.

Round one a draw. Neither girl edging forward. boxing from both girls hitting but not having effective. As Tony Myers tells me effective boxing doesnt mean showing effect.

Round two. By the narrowest of margins. A dot if you will Mary

Round three. Mary lands unanswered body shots and cleanly lands straight punches to the face. Soumia either turns away from the attack (twice)and turns her back to Mary however momentarily or takes them and has her head go back to show the effect of the blow. Mary that round by 10/9 though depending upon your opinion on turning from your opponant it could be a disqualification or a count making it a bigger round.

Certainly if scoring as a running race with the later rounds carrying more sway. mary wins that clash.

I concure an exciting bout but not one with the right ending.
Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-14 11:54:00
If it isnt clear Im scoring and passing observation only upon the posted fight. I am in no position to comment upon the WPKL fight of the thread title as I wasnt there.
Posted: 2007-03-14 17:46:39
some things in life are not fair we just have to hope that the sport learns from its mistakes
Posted: 2007-03-14 22:45:39
Sorry if i intrude but can someone clarify this a little? The title of the thread is "wkpl strips mary hart", but the video shows to me (and i agree with Dave Croft in his judging) an unfair decision altough victoriuos Soumia.
Am i understanding right that the video is of another event not the WKPL fight? if so was it after the event and was Soumia given a rematch and that is it or what..
I am really sorry to trouble with this but i am confused.
Posted: 2007-03-15 01:47:41

Yes, the conversation has moved to the so-called rematch between mary and soumia, which was actually just a 3x2 fight between them in an 8 woman tournament in Holland a few moths ago, under k-1 rules.

The conversation turned to this "rematch" because I mentioned that some of Soumia's supporters feel that since soumia won this 3x2 K-1 rules rematch, that this mary justifies the wpkl's decision to reverse the decision in their first 5x2 MT fight- which was originally judged unanimous in favor of mary hart.

I have never heard of that done in 30 years of watching fights.

It was justified by the wpkl simply on the basis that some wpkl opfficial allegedly made age "biased" statements after the fight.

its especially ridiculous since the official who was allegded to be "biased" was not even involved in the judging. All he said in any event was that "Soumia seemed a bit young to be a world champion"

and for THAT, the wpkl overturn a unanimous decision for Hart by their own 3 judges who saw the fight at ringside??? ????????

BTW: In the orginal fight which was reversed, one judge was Dutch, one was English and one was Belgium.


Posted: 2007-03-15 02:29:35
OK!! great, makes sense now, cheers.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify.
Posted: 2007-03-15 02:30:51
It sounds like they are trying to put out a fire with another fire!!
Posted: 2007-03-15 03:36:57
This last fight had nothing whatsoever to do with the first WPKL fight.
This was a tournament of eight fighter, and had nothing to do with WPKL.

Too bad only this fight is posted because Soumia also fought Naranjo and Yeitsidou that same night and won the tournament.Hart was only the first fight of that evening and as the tape says a split decision.

As for the WPKL story. It's history, and one can only hope all SB's in the World have learned something out of it. Sceptical as I am, I very much doubt it, since I already witnessed worse things since and fear this will keep happening untill this sport comes to 1 SB. As long as there are more SB's then Churches in this World I fear corruption, cover-ups and screw-ups will keep happening.

I do however not agree with the simplefied version Dan wrote earlier in this topic.
I think the words of a chairman of an SB (not just "some official" but the Bill Gates of the compagny) reflex the vision of his SB. These kinds of positions in a SB carry responsibility. It would be too easy to dismiss him as "just an official" and take his words like those of the village idiot.

And I don't think age and inexperience should be standards used to judge a World Title fight. If those standards apply, just don't let them do a WT fight.
With the proof Soumia's former management had on tape I think they had every right to protest this jury. Of course it's up to the SB how to handle it, but that is a different matter. If this jury has something to complain or feels falsely accused, they should take it up with their chairman. He brought it up for them and he put them in this position. Not Soumia's former management.

Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-15 04:48:50
I fear Eric is right. The our sport needs to put its house in order. Credibilty comes at a price and sometimes that price is doing the right thing.

Clearly the WPKL did not on the occasion that generated this thread.

And however valid a point. If indeed on that occasion the Soumia team had a strong case for an objection then the course of action is a rematch. THe taped evidence as we will refer to it shows a view, an angle or aspect of the fight from another perspective not seen or evidential to the judging panel. Therefore at best it is a fourth judges view. As it was a unanimous decision that would farcically make it 3 judges to 1 in favour of Mary.

The fight we have just watched and scored (well I did) shows a later clash between thetwo girls and Mary wins that too. Although in the last round admittedly and we are not party to the other bouts either girl has endured.

Any way thats me out. cya

Posted: 2007-03-15 16:52:26
And I don't think age and inexperience should be standards used to judge a World Title fight.

===Eric, just what evidence does soumia's manager have that the jury considered soumia's age and experience, instead of what happened in the ring? Is he a mind reader?

I don't believe for one minute that three trained Muay Thai judges would decide who won that fight by considering the age or experience of either fighter. And I honestly don't think you really believe that either- because you are far too intelligent to believe something that outlandish. However, I marvel at the depth of your loyalty to your friend soumia, in the face of all the evidence against her position.===

With the proof Soumia's former management had on tape I think they had every right to protest this jury.

=====Eric, could you PLEASE finally tell us all exactly what "proof" they had "on tape" that the judges did anything wrong? We have all been wondering that since this ridiculous protest was filed.

I would certainly like to know what it is. Yet, to this date we have heard or read nothing. I bet others on this board are also still wondering.

The idea that the head of the wpkl influenced those 3 judges (Dan Green, Luc Jensen and the DUTCH judge) decided a muay thai fight based on gae and experience of soumia is just too ridiculous for words. If they really thought she was "too young" or too inexperienced" they wouldnt have sanctioned the fight in the first place. Now would they?? really, Eric...

question for the board: does anyone on this board, other than Eric and Soumia's manager, seriously believe that??

(actually, deep down, i dont think they really believe it either.)

Also, despite what Eric said, soumia's manager had absolutely no right whatsoever to protest a unanimous jury decision; because its clearly written in the wpkl rules that no fighter may protest a unanimous decision.

Moreover, there is absolutely no provison in the wpkl rules to file a protest based on so called "biased statements" . they made that
decision with no written authority in their rules to do so .

This just goes to show how little integrity the wpkl has, how little they respect their own rules, and what poor sportsmanship the protestors exhibited.==

One final comment: anyone who seriously thinks there will ever be one single sanctioning body for the whole world, is a naive child. That's laughable.

And, anyone who thinks its even wise to have one all powerful body with no competition needs a guardian! Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted: 2007-03-16 04:53:06
I’m sick and tired going over the same stuff over and over again. All your answers are in this topic Dan. So please don’t play stupid. You have all the facts, and had them for nearly 1 year now.
If you need more, please contact "Nieuwe Revue"magazine in Holland or even get into contact with and get Mr. Jansen's comments on this subject.

Since you are a WIKBA representative and you feel so strongly about this case, please answer me two questions. Hopefully It gives you better understanding of how I look at this case, and it might once and for all make clear I’m not defending WPKL or even Soumia. Although I really am disgusted by the personal attacks on her. And found some of your last few posts regarding her very questionable. Let me also note I'm good friends with Mary and her trainer as well, and we discussed this topic in both Manchester and Amsterdam.

- How serious should we take the words of the WIKBA chairman? Does this position carry any weight in the organization, or is he just a clown and can we take his words as those of the village idiot?
- If there is reasonable doubt (I think the term is) about the integrity of a possible prejudice WIKBA jury. (And I strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty) Is there anyway to protest this jury, so there can be an inquiry? (Whether to clear the judges or dismiss them).
Or does WIKBA prefer to cover up and protect their own? Maybe even scapegoat the person who protested?

A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

And yes, in this sport I actually think anything is possible unfortunately. Not wanting to have an 17 year old with 2 A-class fights to her name as a World Champion doesn’t sound too incredible too belief to me. Maybe it’s me, but I’ve heard stranger things in this sport.
Posted: 2007-03-16 05:49:18
I thought it was close but it was a win to Mary, in my opinion. Mary looked busier than Soumia and landed more unanswered shots.
Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-16 06:36:59
Sam it isnt who was busier. That isnt a scoring criteria. THough your decision is correct. The manner of my scoring highlights how that fight went. And why.

I naturally accept the judges on the day didnt see it my way. But then this is only a discussion forum not a judging panel.

One point i read with interest was the credibility of a world champion with only 2 a class bouts to her credit.

In no way do I disagree. But illustrate its possibly more a reflection of the available pool of talent within womens thai boxing. There are simply less women competeing than in the male arena. Possibly the ratio is 100/1. Certainly the man who at ten fights who competes for a world title is an exception. And I write this from personal knowledge through her talent, my training, match making and naturally my ability to fund fights Rachael went from talented middle ground to world title challenger in 5 fights.
Soumia appears on film (Ive never seen or met the girl) looks good. Her qualifications to fight, her age, her demeanor or experience have little importance. she fought.

Posted: 2007-03-16 07:36:40
I have to say, I was at ringside for the 3 round fight in Holland on the ladies league tournament and watching the fight live Soumia appeared to be the winner, now I may be wrong (my judging is not good) but i thought in a 3 round fight the rounds were equal and that the last round didnt carry more weight? If this is the case then soumia probabally did win, though I believe Mary could have won if she had fought in the first 2 how she fought in the 3rd, but she didnt so my scoring was 2 rounds to Soumia and 1 round to Mary. I think the best solution to this argument would be (frankly if the girls can be bothered after all the hassle it has caused) a proper 5 round rematch on neutral territory or maybe they should just forget about it and move on. Neither of these girls has anything to prove theyve already proved it!.
Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-16 07:54:24
It is difficult to aportion more importance to any round over another in a three round contest but the later rounds do probably carry more importance if only to illustrate a fighters stamina. If we are discussing the fight as posted then my comments hold true. Soumia turned away twice and took unanswered body kicks in the third round. The previous two rounds looked fairly even. The governing/ruling body may score as kickboxing or boxing scores ie round on round. If however; it scores as per muay thai then the result could differ. The arguements run and run on which system is best. However. If the girls fought muay thai then that is how it ought to be scored.

I dont recall who made the comment but Soumia's young and has a promising career ahead so really this ought to be considered an unfortunate politic blip in her career. She did not start any proceedings against Mary. both girls are victims of prevailing fight politics.

As Mack so rightly points out. Fight again on nuetral ground over 5 x 3 or move on and foget it.

Posted: 2007-03-16 17:11:15
EricR writes:

I’m sick and tired going over the same stuff over and over again. All your answers are in this topic Dan.


Sorry, Eric but there is no answer in this thread to the follwing question:

what evidence do you have that the jury awarded the first fight between soumia and hart, to mary hart based on the statement of the wpkl chairmen that "soumia seemed really young to be a world champion?

and no the the answer is NOT in this thread, or anywhere else on the internet.

and please dont refer us to some Dutch language message board link.


So please don’t play stupid.


Eric, ill leave that to you, since that's clearly becoming your domain.


You have all the facts, and had them for nearly 1 year now.


Eric, I do have all the facts, and I stated them in this thread- and then you said i "simplified" them and that Alex Boogers has evidence of bias on the part of the jurors.

therefore, I have asked you at least three or four times where the evidence is? But, all I get is more evasion from you. Why are you unable to simply post the evidence here and NOW, that the jury in the first hart vs sounia fight was biased \and prove me wrong?

If you would just do that, the matter will be ended once and for all, and you wont have to be "sick and tired" anymore.

Eric, just show us all the evidence and prove me wrong here and NOW! why cant you do that?? I think its obvious you are fresh out of evidence, so you prefer to play on the natural sympathy people will have a for lovely 18 year old girl who is really not the issue here.


If you need more, please contact "Nieuwe Revue"magazine in Holland or even get into contact with and get Mr. Jansen's comments on this subject.


Eric, where is the klink to Mr Jansens comments and is there a tranlation into a english?????? I wont hold my breath wating on that one. ;)


I really am disgusted by the personal attacks on her.


No, Eric, you couldn't possibly be disgusted by personal attacks on her because the fact is there havent BEEN any personal "attacks" on her.

In fact, the only personal attacks have been by YOU on the integrity of the three jurors.

Eric, This thread is about the wpkl wrongly overturning the discretion fo three judges based on a vcr viewing of the fight.

I'll leave it to others: Has anyone here read any personal attacks on soumia
her in this thread??

I certainly cant find any.

Eric, really...I think you are being way too sensitive.


( found some of your last few posts regarding her very questionable.


You must be losing it Eric...i havent posted anything about her at all. its all been about the wpkl decision to overturn a jury's decision based on a vcr replay of the fight.

This isnt about soumia, even though you want it to be. But, you want to make it that becausee you know you havent a leg to stand on in defending that dishonest protest by your friend alex boogers.

thats your real problem, Eric, so you prefer to hide behind the skirts of a 17 year old girl. Well go ahead, but everyone sees right through it.


"How serious should we take the words of the WIKBA chairman? Does this position carry any weight in the organization, or is he just a clown and can we take his words as those of the village idiot?"


Eric, If i were careless enough to express my opinion as to who won or should have won a fight that we sanctioned, or if I said one of the fighters "seemed very young to be a world champion", as the wpkl chairman allegedly did, it would still make no difference whatsoever to the judges.
and therefore they SHOULD, and no doubt WOULD, simply ignore such a statement.

That's why this whole protest was transparently dishonest and disingenous from the beginning-and whats so disappointing to me is that you know it.

And I am very disappointed to see you defending something you know to be patently dishonest.

Eric, I'll go further and say that to suggest that the judges would use irrelevant information such as soumia's age to decide who won a fight is insulting to the intelligence of anyone you try to bamboozle with that stuff.

It's frankly ridiculous and you know damn well its ridiculous. And alex boogers knows it too. and that is also the case with Mary vs Soumia.

It doesnt matter what the WPKL chairman said about Soumia's youth. Theres no way that innocuous statement which was actually intended as a compliment to her early success, is a biased statement. But, even if it were, theres no evidence it influenced the judges-and you cant produce any such evidence.
so who are your trying to fool? Yourself?

Too everyone who posted in this thread:

Its really disgraceful that soumia's manager used a slip of the tongue by the WPKL chairman to intimidate the wpkl into overturning her loss to Mary Hart.

Who "really won" the 2 fights between soumia and mary is totally irrelevant
to this thread. ttt.

who "really won" any fight is always a matter of opinion, which is why we have judges-and its why we dont overturn their judgement decisions.

The issue here is should a sanctioning body overturn the jury's decision because some vanquished sorehead alleges a biased statement by someone who wasnt even a judge. LOL! Thats too ridiculous to even consider as a basis for a protest.


"If there is reasonable doubt (I think the term is) about the integrity of a possible prejudice WIKBA jury. (And I strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty) Is there anyway to protest this jury, so there can be an inquiry? (Whether to clear the judges or dismiss them).
Or does WIKBA prefer to cover up and protect their own? Maybe even scapegoat the person who protested?


Eric, we have never had a protest of any kind,and you know that. And I like to think the reason is becasue we always do the right thing, and yes we always will support the judgment calls of judges as to who won a fight-even if we dont personally agree. It's written into our rules, that we do not entertain protests for any reason except a misapplication of fight rules.

for example, if the rules are modified thai and someone gets knocked down by an elbow, and the ref wrongly counts them out, we would nullify the decision, declare a no contest, and mandate a rematch. That's the only kind of protests that are ever appropriate: rules violations.

You can also rest assured we would not turn around and give give the decision to the other fighter. Unlike with the wpkl, All WIKBA fights are won in the ring.

So, Thanks for asking. Now you know how it SHOULD be done. :)

To reiterate, We would summarily reject any so called protest of a jury's JUDGEMENT decision as to who won a fight-even if the loser was claiming bias. "Bias" is impossible to prove, becasue its basically a "thought crime" And that thats no basis on which anyone can reasonably sustain a protest.

Again, the remedy for a biased jury is always a rematch in a neutral country.

Eric, hometown decisions happen every day unfortunately; and unlike the benighted wpkl, the WIKBA is wise enough not to try and overturn hometown "bias".

Its impossible to prove.

Thats frankly a silly question, but thats your answer-and by the way, the idea of Soumia being a victim of predjudice from a dutch judge and a Netherlands based sanctioning body is frankly laughable.


. Not wanting to have an 17 year old with 2 A-class fights to her name as a World Champion doesn’t sound too incredible too belief to me.


Eric, Then why did they agree to sanction her for a world title fight? You are again defying logic.

They were not biased against her. If they were, they wouldnt have sanctioned her as a challenger.

and besided the judges were from three different countries and they all voted for Hart.


Maybe it’s me, but I’ve heard stranger things in this sport.


Eric, I hate to say this, but it really IS you. And I really hate to have such an unpleasant exchange with you, because you are very attached to Soumia emotionally, and I think this has befogged your normally very keen sense of fair play.

But, this is a clear issue of right and wrong, and what's right for our sport; so I cant compromise that for anyone's feelings. Even for a very good friend which I consider you to be.

And I hope this controversy doesnt ruin our friendship, but if it does, well...I have to stand for what is right.



Posted: 2007-03-16 18:12:09
mack writes:

I have to say, I was at ringside for the 3 round fight in Holland on the ladies league tournament and watching the fight live Soumia appeared to be the winner, now I may be wrong (my judging is not good) but i thought in a 3 round fight the rounds were equal and that the last round didnt carry more weight? If this is the case then soumia probabally did win, though I believe Mary could have won if she had fought in the first 2 how she fought in the 3rd, but she didnt so my scoring was 2 rounds to Soumia and 1 round to Mary. I think the best solution to this argument would be (frankly if the girls can be bothered after all the hassle it has caused) a proper 5 round rematch on neutral territory or maybe they should just forget about it and move on. Neither of these girls has anything to prove theyve already proved it!.


Rach- Who "really won" the 2 fights between soumia and mary is really not what this contorversy is about. ttt!

who "really won" any fight is always a matter of opinion, which is why we have judges-and its why we should never overturn their judgement decisions, or even argue about them.

the real issue here is should a sanctioning body overturn a jury's decision because the loser, (or her manager in this case) alleges a "biased" statement by someone who wasnt even a judge, actually influenced the judge to deliberately render an unfair decision.

This is not something that should be simply "forgotten" and swept under the rug, because its an attack on the integrity of the sport.

If anything should be forgotten its that "vcr title" that was simply
given to soumia in somebody's living room-weeks after they fought.

I suspect that's why Carl Sams bothered to resurrect this old thread. Wrong doers always count on the short memory of the public becasue it always works.

Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-17 06:22:17
Dan Im no longer in contact with rachael and dont feel I owe her a defence of anykind but can happilly point out that rachael is very diplomatic and her post was her being nice and suggesting that a rematch was/is the only credible solution.

My involvement to date on this thread is an interest in the corruption (i trust thats not too strong a word) that prevails in this sport to falsely elevate a fighter to prominance for marketing purposes.

At the recent clash of Rachael and Dauprasuk for the WMC World title of which the result and subsequent developments have been discussed i knew rachael had lost. i knew she was losing as the fight progressed. i knew because i knew what the judges wanted and what they were seeing. but upon returning to the changing rooms somebody (no names) uttered the words "rach should have won! home town decision! its her country for gods sake" Why? Rachael didnt win. A panel of judges scored what they saw not with their hearts (all of the judges I would consider friends and would refuse to ever speak to them ever again if they did me a favour)

My point is simply that promoters must assure themselves of the impatiality of the judges and stick by any decision. Save for the notable options dan offered....violation of rules etc.

On a personal note in all correspondance with Eric and Alex Boogers I have found them to be most reasonable. And that correspondance hasnt always been plain sailing as there was controversy over the (in Erics opinion) Ilonka/Jones decision. But throughout it all and subsequently it was good doing business with them. Can I suggest you have a drinking contest? and dont fall out.

I promised Alex a beer if Jones had fought soumia so I could join you. After all im impartial now that I have no women in the gym LOL

Posted: 2007-03-17 07:12:38
Dan I dont agree with the conduct of the WPKL, I actually agree that they have lost all credibility and infact feel that as they sanction world titles over 5x2 and european rules they are not infact sanctioning muay thai titles, I also dont agree in the contesting of a unanimous decision, infact unless there is a very extenuating circumstance I am of the opinion that we HAVE to trust our judges else we may as well not fight at all, a VCR decision is always dodgy as you only get one angle hence the 3 judges! So giving a world title on those ground is to me ludicrous, the WPKL would have been best to command a rematch, in my opinion or if Soumia management had good grounds then to nullify the title and again have a rematch. My point is, that this is not the doing of the fighters and this has blighted them for the last year, everytime Soumia fights this is brought up again, my own preference would be to punish the WPKL and leave the girls out of it, credible promoters should stop using them as a sanctioning body, people should think twice about fighting for one of their titles etc,
Kelly Leach
Posted: 2007-03-17 07:20:02
This thread has made for quite an long, interesting read!
As an instructor/trainer you put hours upon hours of work into students, you see first hand the results your experience, time, dedication and guidence can bring.
It must be very frustrating when you feel as though you have been given a low blow.
However, Dan after eading this thread i feel you may be a little dizzy as the circles your going in are never ending! :)
You are not getting direct answers to your questions, it seems as though you will never actually establish what was said/done to cause all this upset and aggrivation.
Maybe it's time to move on and accept that not everything works out the way we want. As this amount of time and effort being put into something which i doubt anyone will hold their hand up and admit, yeah i got it wrong, must be very draining on yourself, mary and soumia.
Good luck in getting the answers you want.
Posted: 2007-03-17 17:35:50
Dave Croft writes:

On a personal note in all correspondance with Eric and Alex Boogers I have found them to be most reasonable. And that correspondance hasnt always been plain sailing as there was controversy over the (in Erics opinion) Ilonka/Jones decision. But throughout it all and subsequently it was good doing business with them. Can I suggest you have a drinking contest? and dont fall out.


Yes, the wpkl is a fundamentally corrupt organization,
and they are morally responsible for their craven decision.

But, I also cannot not forget that the wpkl was pressured,
and urged to take this corrupt, dishonest, immoral, and
totally unreasonable action by Soumia's manager, Alex Boogers.
And he ( and sadly Eric also)has subsequently approved their action by defending it.

So, the sad fact is, The wpkl did not act alone, or in a vacuum.
and thats the elephant in the living room that nobody wants to look at it.
And I understand why-its too embarrassing; and it naturally leaves us feeling very uncomfortableto see such ugliness in the actions of people we so want to be able to respect, and work with.

Dave, It would take more time than i have, to write about all the acts of kindness and generosity that Eric has bestowed on me personally and also to our website.

Through the years, he has given me free software and fight dvds; he has helped me with computer problems; he has provided me and my website with a wealth of information on Ilonka Elmont and other Dutch fighters;
and he has been a great source of encouragement for many years now.
In fact, He is one of only two persons I have ever trusted with the password to edit our website.

So how do you express gratitude for all that?
By vehemently opposing, and contradicting him on something that is apparently very important to him?

To have such an unpleasant argument with him on a public forum over something that apparently is deeply important to him for whatever reasons, makes me feel like just giving thewhole thing up, (advancing female Muay Thai and kickboxing) and moving on to other things I would like to accomplish in life.

If hurting friends is what it takes to uphold integrity in our sport,
then maybe its time for me to go.

But whats saddest for me personally me is that someone who has been one
of our ('s earliest and most generous and helpful supporters
is now energetically defending Mr Boogers' decision to pressure the wpkl into taking a corrupt
and reprehensible action. Defending something wrong that one's friend does,
is not the same as actually doing it, but it still bothers me.

I have been hoping that through enough pressure that Eric would finally produce
the evidence of jury corruption that he says Alex Boogers has "on tape" so that i could say
" I am sorry; I was wrong" and end the matter.

But, as you have seen he has not, and regretably it is now apparent
there is no such evidence-the protest was founded on lies
and deception. What other conclusions can anyone draw?

I now understand how Rachel feels: torn by irreconcilable loyalties
and pondering retirement-although her issues, to my knowledge,
don't directly involve matters of honesty and integrity.

Suffice it to say, I am personally gutted by this.

I may yet write one final article on this sad situation, and post it on my site for posterity and possibly pass the site onto a suitable custodian who is dedicted to the sport of female KB and MT.

And if the issue is ever raised again, I'll submit the link, but discuss it no further as axers have become weary of this topic, and i have made my case.

Dave Jackson once told me i take things waay too seriously-and he's no doubt correct.

But, losing friends over someone else's wrong actions is bitter pill to swallow. This maybe the one time i am actually not taking something too seriously.

In retrospect, I probably should have kept my mouth shut, averted my gaze,and just breathed through my mouth, and the stench would have eventually passed
on and forgotten, and business would continue as usual.

Thanks for affirming that the wpkl decision was fundamentally
unprincipled, and corrupt.

Posted: 2007-03-17 17:51:28
Kelly Leach writes:

Dan after eading this thread i feel you may be a little dizzy as the circles your going in are never ending! :)

Indeed!! And Mega thanks for making me laugh, Kelly!

You are right, pursuing the truth here is like going a round with willie pep and never landing a blow, as one frustrated opponent (Jackie Graves) experienced.

In conclusion, You would think someone who earnestly believes they had an honest and legitimate grievance (worth a bitter and divisive protest) would be more than anxious to write at length and in excruciating detail about it-for all to see- and certianly not pirouette around relevant unanswered questions, like Rudolph Nureyev.(sp?)

But,as you say, we have been through all that.

Thanks for you sense of humor!



You are not getting direct answers to your questions, it seems as though you will never actually establish what was said/done to cause all this upset and aggrivation.
Maybe it's time to move on and accept that not everything works out the way we want. As this amount of time and effort being put into something which i doubt anyone will hold their hand up and admit, yeah i got it wrong, must be very draining on yourself, mary and soumia.
Good luck in getting the answers you want.
Dave Jackson
Posted: 2007-03-17 19:03:11
Dan, I still think that you sometimes take things a bit too seriously but I think that this time you were right to keep the thread alive.

I also tried to do that in the threads infancy.

As you say its nothing to do with whether or not we feel that Mary or Soumia won.

This debate is simply about how the WPKL`s rules were breached by overturning a unanimous descision.
Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-18 07:16:14

Indeed any thing be it an action, statement or deed that divides loyalties is not the best situation. Rachaels position is one of my doing plain and simple. It was my ultimatum and my firm resolution that firmed it. I called time on a situation that made me unhappy. It isnt and was never meant to be a poor reflection upon any other party. Just something I had to do. The only slight difference being that I made a final decision for her as a consequence of her hestitation. It saddens me but then many things do and I get by.

I sympathise with your position and clearly recognise your angst in the matter. Doing right sometimes has a price. The price tag for this act seems to be your friendship.

The similarities go beyond that though....Its Womens Thai boxing, The price of doing right is a friendship. Im simplyfying somewhat but you get my drift.

For whatever reason, with what ever supporting evidence the stated manner of the deposing of one fighter in favour of another is frankly ridiculous and scorn should be cast towards the WPKL for its actions.

I happily support your witch hunt. It is righteous in the extreme.

Kelly Leach
Posted: 2007-03-18 14:35:44
Dan i think you have done a very good job in trying to stand up to the corruption etc and you have certainly fought your corner well.
We do take things personnally and esculation does accur when not getting anywhere fast, and yeah sometimes we need to stand back to appriciate that there has always and will always, in every walk of life, be someone willing to bow down to the slightest pressure and do what they deem easiest at the time... regrets too little too late especially in cases like this.
As i said in my previous post good luck to you.
Posted: 2007-03-18 18:52:43
To Eric,

You are a good friend, and I really do owe you a lot.

Such good friends are hard to find; and I would hate to lose
a friend over the wpkl screw up and what i see as a frivolous
and basically unjustifiable protest.

However, you are really not to blame for either the protest
or the wpkl's actions. So, I want to apologize to you for
the rude and sarcastic language that i directed toward
you in the tail end of this thread.

I could have easily made all of my points
without being the least bit rude
towards you, had i simply taken a moment to reflect before
i posted a frustrated reply.

So please accept my apology.

I understand that you were basically defending your close
friend whom I believe to be at least marginally culpable.
But, I should take that up with him-not you.(and i shall)

You can e-mail me if you like.

Kelly Leach
Posted: 2007-03-19 03:37:27
Dan, Good on you for taking steps to salvage this friendship.
Eric i hope you accept this apology.
Strong friendships will stand the test of time, corruption will be exposed eventually.
Dave Croft
Posted: 2007-03-19 04:58:08
a drinking contest it is then! fabulous! can I come too.

On a more sober note. I hope the price of doing right was on ssale and you get to make your point and keep a friendship. seems a nice conclusion.
and im not given to being soft.
Posted: 2007-03-19 09:05:20

As far as I'm concerned there is no need for an apology because having a heated discussion never hurt a friendship of mine. If at any time I would have felt insulted or mistreated I would have contacted you in private by e-mail or even telephone. And I would expect you to do the same. I would never risk hurting a friendship on public fora. So if I have been too provocative towards you, I also apologize. Reason I haven’t responded here or e-mailed you back yet is because I was out for the weekend. So, as far as I’m concerned there are no hard feelings whatsoever, and I don’t feel our friendship has been threatened. I just see 2 friends having an argument trying to give each other wake-up calls to their own vision.

Having said that, what again does irritate the hell out of me is even in your apology you refer to my “close friendship” with Soumia and her team as a basis for my approach and stand towards this mess. I don’t know how to emphasize more that it is totally irrelevant to me who was in that ring that night. Further more it was me doing translations from Dutch to English when asked.I hardly think that has helped Soumia and her team. From day 1 I tried to keep a neutral position. Helped my English friends the same as my Dutch friends. So putting me in Soumia's corner is a bit too easy and just not fair.
Too me this topic is about how a SB handles their screw-ups. Nothing more nothing less. Something I tried to make you see in mirroring the situation for you from WPKL to WIKBA. Obviously I failed miserably.

As far as I can see a huge difference between you and me is how we look up on the position of a Chairman. You keep revering to him as “some official” and his remarks “slip of the tongue” , where I consider this as a statement by the WPKL chairman. And I do think my understanding from the Dutch language is sufficient enough to notice the difference. (As you know I was standing 5 ft from where the conversation took place.) But maybe my profession has me taken jobs and responsibilities of CEO’s, Chairman’s, Founders too seriously. Maybe with SB’s a chairman is a function without responsibilities and should his words not been taken seriously.

Second. I don’t think it’s reasonable to hold the person filing a protest accountable for creating this mess. Besides that imo there was all reason to file one, the WPKL could have easily chosen to dismiss the protest. They didn’t. They even had a special board meeting about it taking votes whether to dismiss or validate the protest. They validated it and for me, this is the crucial point where the whole mess starts.

Bottom-line is I hold the WPKL responsible for the mess and ONLY them. The way you approach this mess, too me, looks like what I think you in the USA would call a “McCarthy Witch-hunt” killing the messenger and everyone looking suspicious in the process. I will send you a private e-mail soon in which I will explain where and why I find you “convenient flexible” with the facts/truth you present in this discussion.

So, thanks for offering your apologies. As far as I’m concerned it was not necessary to do so since I don’t feel our friendship has been in any danger. But maybe instead of provoking you, I should have been wiser and taken our conversation private off board sooner. So, I feel I carry as much responsibility for the escalation as you do.

Take care & we talk soon,
Posted: 2015-12-22 21:31:52
Is this organisation still going?
Javascript is disabled in your browser. Please turn on Javascript to post messages.
Post your message
Name: Forget your password?
Password: Save password
Attach Picture:
Link to picture:

Create Topic

Password: Forget your password?
Topic name:
Create in:

Search Forum

Search topics for keywords: