A judge is conventionally defined as "one who renders an authoritative opinion." Last Wednesday night at Foxwoods Casino in Mashantucket, CT, boxing judge Steve Epstein rendered his opinion on the Jaime Clampitt/Jane Couch rematch. Unfortunately, there was very little authoritative about Epstein's decision, which came up 100-90 for Clampitt.

 The two other judges, at ringside, Glenn Feldman and Don O'Neill, had a scorecard that to many fans seemed more reasonable, 98-92 for Clampitt. ESPN commentator Teddy Atlas had Clampitt ahead 97-94 and, through the filter of a TV screen, I scored the bout 97-95 for Clampitt.

It was a very good bout between two skilled female boxers, and lest there be any doubt, Jaime Clampitt was clearly the better fighter on this night. And while this bout lacked some of the bell to bell action of the first Clampitt/Couch bout in the same venue three years prior, when Couch won a very close unanimous decision, the Wednesday bout was a quality-filled ten rounds, significantly above the normal fare of ESPN's past presentation of female boxing and, hopefully, a positive portend for future bouts on the network. It's unfortunate that the quality of the scoring, in particular, Steve Epstein's card, did not match that of the boxers.

Judging a professional boxing match is a difficult assignment even for the most experienced of officials and Steve Epstein is an experienced boxing judge. I would like to think that if he had the benefit of instant replay, his card might reflect scoring closer to that of his two fellow officials at ringside or the scoring of the estimable Mr. Atlas. Here's my own objective judgment: As well as Jaime Clampitt boxed on Wednesday night, and she was at the top of her game, there is no way to watch those ten rounds closely and arrive at the conclusion that Clampitt won every round. After the decision was announced, Joe Tessitore, Atlas' commentating partner, called the scoring "deceiving" which seemed, to a TV viewer, a euphemism for "off the mark."

Someone with an extensive knowledge of, and insight into, Women's boxing counseled me, "don't be so bitter" about the scoring. I stopped short of pointing out the penchant of the Irish to thrive on bitterness and even neglected the more measured reply that I wasn't bitter, I was disappointed. I was disappointed, primarily, for the distraction wrongheaded judgment, even one scoring card, can have on a good fight.

I was disappointed for the fans, for the fighters and for the sport. Instead of talking only about the skill displayed in the ring, some fans, in various postmortems on the Internet, noted that the scoring was out of balance, given the manner in which Jane Couch rallied in the second half of the bout. And, those fans were right. I was also disappointed for Jane Couch, who made her second lengthy trip, from England to Connecticut, to battle Clampitt and who, in any reasonable assessment of the bout, won at least two and possibly three rounds and might have gotten an even call on one or two others.

 And yet on one of three "official" scorecards, it was deemed that Couch had won none of the ten rounds and, even more ludicrous, that Couch hadn't even earned an even round. Simply put, that scorecard was wrong, egregiously wrong. I, likewise, felt disappointed for the clear winner, Jaime Clampitt, primarily because following one of her best ring performances in what, to date, has been a stellar career, a win against a woman who had previously beaten her, the some focus of the discussion of the bout wasn't the outstanding performance of Clampitt.

 What should have been a great night for Clampitt and her sport, was dulled just a bit, by talk of disputed scoring. Finally, I was disappointed for the sport of Women's boxing, when, on a night when ESPN finally had a terrific "two good fighters" bout, that lived up to most fan's hopes, one distorted scorecard kept it from being a perfect night for the sport.

Did this scoring lapse cause Irreparable harm to the fighters, the fans and the sport? Of course not, a fight like last Wednesday's Clamptt/Couch bout can only have positive, long term effects.

 Begin with the fact that the deserving fighter won the decision and then add on that the fans in Connecticut and the ones watching on television saw ten rounds of skilled female boxing. Given the history of Women's boxing and the medium of television, ten rounds of quality boxing are, by any measure, a great night. And yet, one wanted every aspect of the night to be perfect and it wasn't. The fans got a very good fight and some flawed scoring.

Steve Epstein, from all reports, enjoys a good reputation as a boxing judge. He has "worked" other women's bouts, notably the Clampitt/St John bout in February along with many top male bouts in this country and abroad. But, on a great night for Jaime Clampitt, on a terrific night for the sport of Women's boxing, Steve Epstein had what one is forced to call a bad night for a good boxing judge.

 It happens to the best of officials and it happened to Steve Epstein last Wednesday at Foxwoods Casino. It's reasonable to assume it probably won't happen again any time soon. Good officials have many, many more good nights than bad ones. Jaime Clampitt, Jane Couch, the sport of Women's boxing and fans in Connecticut and on ESPN had a good night last Wednesday. In my judgment it could have been even better.  Bernie McCoy

 

#          #          #          #

For Online IWBHF Tickets for Next Event!

Check Our Next Annual International Women's Boxing Hall of Fame Event that we have to celebrate hour IWBHF Inductees and Special Award  Recipients!  Next Event, Go Here!

Our Online WBAN/IWBHF Online Store

Proceeds from the Online Store is to continue our mission to support the INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S BOXING HALL OF FAME. The Official collection includes IWBHF and WBAN Merchandise and Memorabilia from the WBAN Boxing Collection. We will continue to list items from the collection and merchandise.