Hi Lollo,

The accusations were that some of the judging in Auckland is Biased and it
is. Most people in the game know it and accept it - but that does not mean
that they have to like it.

Of course different judges will see fights different ways and at the end of
a close fight no one should complain when a decision goes either way (after
all it was a close fight).

However when the fight is not close and it is obvious who the winner is - ie
the Tristam and Peter Graham fight then one must question how the judges
made there decision – you all agree on that. If a fight can be judged that poorly then it is one of
3 things (maybe more if we include drugs!!)

Bias
Incompetance
Gambling

If the judge is biased then they should not be there (it should be asked who
chose the judges if people think this is the case). If the judge is
incompetant then they should not be there and the same is the case for
gambling.

Which was it in the case of the Peter Graham and Tristam fight?

I am also amazed that as a trainer you could overturn a decision - from a
win for Tristam to a Draw.

This disturbs me on so many levels.

Right or wrong is relevent and it always will be. People who judge should do
the right thing - mistakes happen and so do poor decisions. People in
general and fighters have to deal with that.

But this does not mean that it should be accepted.