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

===============================================================================

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.

dan