Back in August 2010 Cornelius Bundrage beat Cory Spinks by TKO in the fifth round of their first meeting. Spinks has since gone on to win two fights while Bundrage has defended his title just once, so their lack of fights could have been one of the major concerns for both fighters ahead of their rematch at the weekend.
Spinks once held the IBF, WBC and WBA titles at welterweight when he defeated Ricardo Mayorga on points in December 2003. He fought Jermain Taylor at middleweight for the title in April 2009 but lost by split decision so he moved back down in weight and won the vacant IBF light-middleweight belt. However he went on to lose it in his first defence to Bundrage.
A good boxer with very little power, Spinks has shown signs of losing his reflexes, although he is still only 34 years old. He has six losses out of 54 fights but he only has 11 ko's. Could the son of former heavyweight champion, Leon Spinks, and the nephew of two weight-class champion, Michael Spinks, get himself back into the world scene yet again?
Bundrage won the fight but the question that overshadows his win is, in my opinion, why did the referee count to ten on two separate occasions?
Quotes of the week
Bundrage won his title as a 37-year-old, so he matured late. He has four losses and 18 ko's from his 36 fights. He is probably best known for his spot on the TV show "The Contender".
Spinks began the fight either uninterested or totally shot. Bundrage was landing left jabs and right hands at will and with about 40 seconds left in the opening round, a right to the head of Spinks put him down. He got up unsteady on his feet but was able to make it through the round.
Spinks was trying to get his right jabs going in the second round but it looked like his legs were gone. He almost fell a few times although he did land some body shots which were the only shots he landed in the first two rounds. All credit to Spinks as he came back and won the third round by stepping up his speed and landing straight lefts, getting himself out of trouble before anything came back at him.
Bundrage, whose eye was cut by the fourth, had slowed a little and Spinks was beating him to the punch. By now Spinks looked like he got a new lease of life and forced Bundrage backwards, looking like he wanted to be in the fight.
Going into the seventh, Spinks had at least levelled the scores but left himself open to the same right hand that put him down in the first round and got knocked down again. He got to his feet at the count of nine. Referee Ray Corona counted to ten but let Spinks continue. He was hurt.
A few shots later he went down again with another right hand. He got up, again on the count of nine, but once more the referee counted to ten. He asked if he wanted to continue and he said he did. He was still out of it and fell down twice with well over a minute to go in the round. Finally, with about 30 seconds left, the referee stopped it.
Bundrage won the fight but the question that overshadows his win is, in my opinion, why did the referee count to ten on two separate occasions? Spinks rose at nine and therefore the count should have been stopped. I understood if a referee counted to ten you were counted out and the fight was over.
The "Marquess of Queensbury rules" clearly states that "Should the referee count to ten, then the knocked-down boxer is ruled "knocked out" and the other boxer is ruled the winner by knockout."
The fight should have been over after the first knockdown when the referee clearly counted to ten. How did no-one else see this? Not Bundrage's corner, the commentators not the commission at ringside.