The IBF has denied a request by the camp of light heavyweight challenger Gabriel Campillo for an immediate rematch with titleholder Tavoris Cloud, who won a controversial Showtime-televised split-decision on Feb 18 in Corpus Christi, Texas, IBF public relations director, Jeanette Salazar, told RingTV.com.
Both the IBF and the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation had been reviewing and examining the circumstances surrounding Cloud-Campillo based on separate filings by the handlers of Campillo, including co-promoter, Sampson Lewkowicz, and attorney Leon Margules, the latter of whom said Texas’ investigation is ongoing.
Margules had sent a letter to IBF President Daryl Peoples and Championships Chairman Lindsay Tucker “formally asking them to order an immediate rematch under rule 5-K” of the organization’s rules governing Defense of a Title.
In accordance with the rule, “The Championships Chairman and The President in their discretion may direct two contestants to engage in a rematch for the championship within a perscribed time.”
Campillo rose from two first-round knockdowns and appeared to take control of the fight, using his boxing skills to cause deep cuts around each of Cloud’s eyes.
Cloud, was, nevertheless, awarded an unpopular verdict, 116-110 (eight-to-four in rounds) and 114-112 (six-to-six) on the cards of judges David Robertson and Joel Elizondo, respectively. Judge Dennis Nelson had it for Campillo, 115-111.
Nelson, of St. Paul, Minn., had worked such title bouts as junior flyweight Ulises Solis’ split decision over Luis Lazarte in April of 2011, junior welterweight Devon Alexander’s unanimous decision over Andriy Kotelnik in August of 2010, and Tim Bradley’s unanimous decision over Lamont Peterson in December of 2009.
Robertson is out of Houston, and had worked only one other title bout, a ninth-round knockout by Solis against Bert Batawang for the IBF junior flyweight belt in February of 2007. Elizondo was working his first major title fight.
Margules provided RingTV.com with a letter stating the official ruling made by Peoples.
“The judging of professional boxing events is subjective. While you have presented many media accounts disputing the scoring of the fight, these criticisms do not represent the opinions of professional boxing judges. Absent any proof of wrong doing, we must rely on the decisions rendered by the judges whether their decisions are popular or not,” wrote Peoples.
“Any action taken by the IBF in this situation without proof of wrong doing or violation of IBF rules would serve to invalidate the decision of the judges. You pointed out in your letter dated February 27, 2011, ‘While we do not believe that a judges’ scoring should normally be questioned’, the IBF agrees with your position. Based on the foregoing, the IBF will not grant an immediate rematch in pursuant to Rule 5.K. of the IBF/USBA Rules Governing Championship Contests.”
Of his filing with the Texas commission, Margules said, “basically, I have asked them to investigate and to discipline the officials, and to change their decision to a no-contest.”
According to public relations official Susan Stanford, of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, Margules was sent “a request for more information that we needed.”
“Texas has asked for a copy of the judges score cards, which I have already sent them and will send them again,” said Margules. “But they also want a copy of the video tape since I had never sent the video. Texas sent me a letter in the mail, which I received this morning [Monday.]”
Margules read the letter to RingTV.com legal assistant Delia Luna of the Texas commision.
“We have received your complaint that you have filed against David Robertson and Joel Elizondo. In order for us to proceed further with our review of your complaint, we’ll need some additional information. Specifically please provide us with a complete copy of the judges’ scorecards and a copy of the video and any other supporting documentation you may have relating to your complaint,” read the letter.
“Please provide the requested information no later than March 16 so that we may proceed with our evaluation of your complaint and determine whether an investigation is warranted. If we do not hear from you within the time frame listed above, then our department will not be able to pursue this matter and no further action will be taken on your complaint.”
Stanford said that once “intake verifies that we have jurisdiction, then it will go to an investigator, and then the investigator performs the investigation, and then turns it over to a prosecutor.
“That prosecutor then examines the file and determines whether or not there should be an administrative penalty or what action, if any, should be taken.”
Stanford would not elaborate on what “action” could result in a finding in favor of Campillo’s camp.
Photos by Naoki Fukuda
Lem Satterfield can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org