(MAR 26) Mia St. John is correct. [St. John's Open Letter]  It is common knowledge, throughout the sport, that she has no "ties" to any promoter and nowhere in the piece was that implied or stated. What was stated, in a quote from Dierdorff, is: "She (St. John) came into the ring wearing the promoter's logo." That is a far cry from implying any "tie" to the promoter. It was also noted, I think correctly, by Dierdorff, that "Mia was the attraction that night." Mia St. John was the "name above the title" for that bout in Indiana, as she often is, and that would have been the case had Rita Figueroa not dropped off the card and it certainly was the case when a late replacement fighter took over for Figueroa. [Dierdorff's Open Letter]

As for Mia's contention that the WBC international belt is a not minor or irrelevant title, that is her opinion, to which she is certainly entitled and which runs counter to mine. I would note that of the three classifications of World Boxing Council belts (WBC, NABF, International) the international is third of three in terms of renown. As I stated I continue to believe that there are far too many titles in the sport of Women's boxing, but that in no way disparages St. John's accomplishment at capturing the WBC international title. We simply disagree on the relevance of the belt.

We do agree that the first bout was an example of good boxing and I'm sure we join in the hope that the return bout provides a big time showcase for the athletes and the sport.