Robbery of the year.... (and it's only February!)

So, Malik Scott, an experienced and skilled boxer vs the rising Ukranian Vyacheslav Glazkov who made Tor Hamer quit on his stool after 4 in his last fight. Also I heard somewhere he beat David Price as an amateur.

I'd say Malik won eight rounds at least. He was too awkward throughout the bout, owned Glazkov with the jab and didn't allow him to do anything when he got up close. It's a shame Scott can't finish fights because he deserved plaudits for totally nullifying a dangerous and confident prospect.

See for yourselves...

http://www.allthebestfights.com/vyacheslav-glazkov-vs-malik-scott-full-fight-video-2013/

He stopped price as an amateur jbw, which until last night made hi m seem a prospect

His work ethic, fundamentals and hands heavy enough to make half his opponents quit on their stools made me think he was worth a watch. Tor Hamer wasn't even hurt and he just wouldn't come out for another round.

Really was an awful decision. Similar to Rios v Abril in one sidedness but at least they didn't have the audacity to actually award Glazkov the victory.

Glazkov was being hyped by Yahoo. Oh dear!

Saw this one this morning as it goes, JBW.

A bad one. Not quite sure it'll still be a 'Robbery of the Year' contender come December, mind you, but a poor verdict all the same. I had it 97-93 to Scott who, from my point of view, pretty much won the fight clearly enough with his jab and his jab alone for all intents and purposes. I gave Glazkov the fifth, sixth and the ninth, the rounds in which Scott fell in love with his own work a little bit and allowed Glazkov to get in close and go to work, but I struggle to see how anyone could give Glazkov more than four rounds at the very, very most.

Reminded me a little of the Lara-Williams fight a couple of years back, insofar as Scott was winning rounds without really having to fully extend himself and while in cruise control. No rounds were truly dominated by one man, but Scott was just doing enough to be appreciably the better of the pair. The only explanation I can give is that, due to this making the fight such a tepid spectacle, the judges' minds were wandering and, whenever Glazkov mounted any kind of worthwhile attack, it suddenly woke them up and therefore was all they noticed in certain periods.

I mean, Glazkov did huff and puff all night, and was on the forward charge for the most part, but in terms of actual effective aggression and clean work he came up with next to nothing!

Unremarkable fight made worse by a remarkably bad decision.