06.12.06 – By Izyaslav “Slava” Koza: As a prelude to what should be a very interesting interview with Vitali Tsypko, mostly regarding this past Saturday’s bout with Jeff Lacy, I wanted to weigh-in with my opinion on the bout. For one, I tuned in due to the Clottey-Margarito overlap (can anybody say “exposed” and Margarito at the same time?) only after the third round, but from what I understand those were clearly Lacy rounds, anyway.
For two, I do not think this fight, which was, in my opinion, a good action scrap, would bring out much post-bout interest from me were it not for something Jim Lampley said before beginning the Wright Quartey coverage. For those that missed it, Lampley mentioned that one of the three judges, presumably one of the two who gave the bout to Lacy, scored the tenth round for him as well, thereby allowing his card to tip the scale in favor of Lacy, since a Tsypko round would result in a majority draw.
My inclination after the fight was not to suspect anything fishy going on, even though as soon as the bout had ended everyone in the room knew who the winner would be in such a close contest. Lacy was the hometown guy, and the obvious gate earner because he brought in the fans, which is why it was not really a surprise that he got the decision.
For most of the bout I objectively scored rounds for either fighter but also made a mental note in regards to whether it was a toss-up round whereby, a slight marginal variation from my scorecard would still agree with my general opinion. At the end I could see a win for either guy or better yet a draw. However, The tenth round was in no way a toss-up, much like it wasn’t in either the Hopkins-Taylor bout, or the Spinks Karmazin bout, and so if a judge gives the definitively losing fighter that round it seems he is trying to decide who took the fight on his card rather then the round. All of the fights mentioned were toss up fights, with one round either way.
You can bet every dollar you have, that the judge that awarded the 10th round to Lacy, can justify his decision if he is called on it. And, of course, without any concrete evidence but this sort of personal speculation, it will be swept under the rug. Without more concrete or better defined guidelines for scoring, Tsypko should just gun for the rematch, and Lacy can rest at ease thinking he won.
As it stands, Vitali Tsypko has a loss on his record, which I personally feel he did not deserve and nothing will probably be done about it. In fact, he could very well go back to Ukraine and get a gift decision over somebody himself and nothing will be done about it either, but for the billionth time, two wrongs don’t make a right, folks.
Why am I writing about his particular case as opposed to say some other fighter’s?
Really, it’s because I saw this fight live and I saw that incident as an example of typical problem with scoring boxing fights. Funny thing is, you might see less of these last round tiebreaker swing victories in the future because eventually someone will fix them problem.
I am also a fan of the sport and I cheer and have my biases for certain fighters, and yes, I wanted the underdog, the Ukrainian to win his fight, which is, in part, why you are reading a piece on the matter, but the difference is, I did not make a mistake that cost Lacy the fight. Even though it’s not the same as seeing it live, or ringside, I dare ask anyone who has not seen it to grab a copy and watch the last round once over and judge for yourself who it belonged to, and then add your thoughts on the matter.
Furthermore, don’t blame Jeff Lacy for what happened because the man did his best with an injury that made one of Tsypko’s countrymen, Vitali Klitschko, quit against Chris Byrd. I hope Lacy’s shoulder heals, and for the sake of boxing, just like Jermain Taylor and Floyd Mayweather, gives Tsypko his justly deserved rematch in order to prove that he wants no controversy to mar his reputation as a fighter.
Finally, some hostile elements might say, “a fighter should not bank on a single round to get a draw,” as somebody famous mentioned in regards to Hopkins-Taylor 1. This sort of pansy, moderate, wise-man justification really angers me. How many rounds should a fighter bank on? Two? Three? How does he know what to bank on if he doesn’t know the result until it is announced?
Fighters have enough to worry about what with getting hit in the head for 12 rounds then to think about if somebody will make a mistake and tarnish their accomplishment. If boxers did that they would enter fights with a stoic pessimism knowing whatever they do to try and win won’t matter and definitely won’t give us that which we tune in for, or pay to see, this of course being good damn boxing.