(FEB 10)  In the first big-time newsroom I ever worked in, the number two paper in St. Louis, then a two paper town, there was a large sign strategically positioned so you couldn't miss it any time you looked up from your typewriter: the sign urged, "GET IT RIGHT AND GET IT OUT;" once you get the story and get it right, get it out to the readers.

Fox Sports Network got a good Women's boxing story last Thursday, a five bout female card from the Pechanga Resort and Casino in Temecula, CA., but instead of getting it out to it's viewers, the network chose to wait 24 hours and televise it on a delayed broadcast basis. By the time the fights were broadcast, the results of the three IFBA championship bouts, were known to most fans of the sport. I doubt many of the Fox Sports folks would have lasted very long at the number two paper in St. Louis.

Fox Sports seems to be very cognizant of the audience impact and the rating potential of "live" telecasts of Women's boxing. Past shows were subsequently hailed, by the network, as achieving a ratings "spike." Additionally, February is a national rating "sweeps" period during which networks, traditionally, program shows with the strongest audience appeal. It can be assumed it was no coincidence that Fox Sports chose February 8 for another of their female boxing telecasts.

Understand, I applaud Fox Sports and the IFBA for providing television coverage for a sport that not only needs it, but a sport that, in recent years, has been largely neglected or completely ignored by most other sports networks. However, a February 8 telecast of a February 7 event needs a bit of work in terms of timing. Like every other form of entertainment and sports, boxing, on television, is at it's best when it's broadcast "in the moment."

As far as the telecast, the 11PM start time, in the Eastern  time zone, representing over half of the TV households, will never be confused with prime-time scheduling. Nonetheless, Fox Sports provided it's top boxing announcing team, Barry Tompkins and Rich Marotta, to handle the commentary. Neither broadcaster has day/day experience with Women's boxing, but both have covered the sport, over the years, and both are top fight boxing announcers.

A more experienced Women's boxing commentator, a Arnie Rosenthal, "A Ring of Their Own" creator, for instance, or, boxer Jill Emery, who did outstanding work on the last AROTO telecast, might have been a welcome addition to the broadcast team. But that's a minor quibble.

During the telecast's introduction, three ten round championship bouts were announced, in order of broadcast: Lisa Brown/Jeri Sitzes, Melissa Hernandez / Chevelle Hallback, and the main event, Holly Holm/Belinda Laracuente. It was, therefore, a bit confusing to a viewer, when the Hernandez/Hallback bout was the first to be telecast, a decision made, obviously, between the "live" bouts and the delayed broadcast.

The reason behind such a decision was soon apparent: Hallback / Hernandez was the best bout of the night. In the run-up to fight night, there had been some discussion, within the boxing community, that this bout might not live up to expectations since the fighters were good friends outside the ring.

Barry Tompkins made a brief reference, during the fight, to the fact of the fighters being "friendly," but offered no further comment as to the effect this circumstance might have on the bout. Both fighters did, indeed, seem to touch gloves an inordinate number of times during the bout, both at the start and the end of many rounds, but in between those salutations, both Hernandez and Hallback filled the two minutes with punches thrown with what can only be described as "very bad intentions."

Hallback landed the heavier blows but Hernandez managed to finish most rounds with strong rallies. It was a terrific back-and-forth bout that had the crowd and announcers engaged for all ten rounds. Hallback and Hernandez may be friends, but both went all out for ten rounds and at the end, the decision of a draw was, in Marotta's words, "an appropriate decision."

 Few could argue. Unfortunately, there was no post fight interview (a perfect spot for a Rosenthal or Emery) even though it was mentioned throughout the bout that Hernandez was "loaded with charisma." It would be have been interesting to hear from the two fighters and maybe contrast their friendship with the ferocity of the bout. These ten rounds were, in any post-analysis, the highlight of the fight card and the telecast.

The main event was not. Belinda Laracuente is a difficult opponent for any fighter, going back as far as her 2000 bout with Christy Martin. Laracuente knows every move in the book and a couple that are probably only in rare editions.

Laracuente's style seemed to have Holm, at times, semi-confused. Holm clearly won the early rounds as Laracuente appeared to be using her time probing for weakness that simply are not that numerous with the Albuquerque fighter. Laracuente's best rounds were the final stanzas as she became more comfortable with the bout's pace and started to land her best shots of the bout.

The announcers' delivery reflected the deliberate pace of the bout and both Tompkins and Marotta became more understated, in describing the action, as the fight progressed, only enlivening their delivery as Laracuente rallied in the final rounds. Prior to the fight date, there arose a controversy over whether ten ounce gloves would be used. Some in the Albuquerque press offered the theory that Laracuente wanted the bigger gloves to lessen the chances of a KO by Holm.

Holly Holm is a wonderful fighter, possibly the best pound/pound boxer in the sport, today. She is not, however, the reincarnation of Lucia Rijker and her six KOs have come, thus far, against the lesser opponents in her career. Belinda Laracuente seems far too experienced and knowledgeable in the ring to be concerned about suffering her first career KO at the hands of Holly Holm.

 Marotta and Tompkins did not mention the ten ounce glove issue during the bout, but probably should have covered it, particularly during the tepid pace of the middle rounds. Whether it was the fighters' contrasting styles or some other factor, the Holm/Laracuente bout was a main event in name only.

Telecast between the best bout of the night and the "main event" was the low point of the telecast and it had nothing to do with the two fighters, Lisa Brown and Jeri Sitzes. In point of fact, Brown and Sitzes, both quality fighters, put on seven rounds of action packed boxing. Yes, seven rounds. The ten round bout was joined, on this delayed telecast, in the fourth round. The announcers noted that Sitzes had "a good first three rounds." How good? That wasn't detailed, but both Tompkins and Marotta seemed to feel that Sitzes was well ahead, on the scorecards, after the first three rounds.

That these rounds were never shown on the telecast was unfortunate as both announcers referred to them, several times, as the fight progressed. Brown seemed to have an edge in the final seven rounds, albeit a small one, as Sitzes dominated several parts of the seven rounds, particularly round six, which she clearly won. Brown did, officially, score a knockdown in the ninth round and the announcers both agreed, based on replay, that Brown should also have been credited with an eighth round knockdown. She wasn't.

 In both cases, it should be noted, the knockdowns were of the "flash" variety and Sitzes did not appear hurt after either one. After the ten rounds, Marotta had Sitzes slightly ahead, Tompkins had Brown by a similar slim margin. Both announcers were taken aback when the judges awarded Brown the bout, by unanimous decision and, in two instances, with votes that were overwhelming. While Brown had an edge in the last seven rounds, the question remained, to a viewer, what was Sitzes' edge in the first three rounds.

 Fox Sports programmers, working on a delayed telecast basis, deprived viewers of such insight since the first three rounds landed on the cutting room floor. Based on the rounds that were shown, this was a very good fight and the viewers and the fighters were both poorly served, by Fox Sports, as a result of the editing. The crowd voiced their vocal disapproval of the decision, whether in reaction to the fact that Brown was declared the winner, or the unanimous margin of victory, wasn't clear. Meanwhile viewers, at home, were left guessing what those first three rounds looked like.

That editing was a mistake by Fox Sports which can be directly traced to the fact that a good fight card, consisting of three bouts with six quality fighters, was not broadcast "live." If the card had been shown "live," there would not have been the extended commercial "pods," some as long as three minutes or four minutes, between rounds.

If the card had been telecast "live," viewers would have treated to the entire Brown/Sitzes bout and, based on the last seven rounds of that bout, it would have been far more entertaining than an endless stream of KFC commercials. Give Fox Sports and the IFBA credit for lending support to and providing television exposure for Women's boxing. The network has, essentially, stood alone in that regard and it is never easy finding two hours of television time on a major network.

Give two good announcers, Barry Tompkins and Rich Marotta, credit for a quality boxing call and, for, several times during the telecast, pointing out that the sport of Women's boxing has improved to the point where female bouts no longer deserve to be "four fights down on a PPV card."

The sport does, indeed, deserve "stand alone" cards and telecasts like the one from Temecula, with fighters just like the ones last week in the Pechanga Resort ring. But those fights and those fighters deserve "live" coverage, not some chopped up, delayed telecast version, a day later. It's really simple and has been for a long time: "GET IT RIGHT AND GET IT OUT."