THE BULLDOG writes:


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 womenkickboxing.com

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(www.womenkickboxing.com/wikba_ratings.htm)

(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".

dan