By Willie Jackson

If we're to believe what we've heard this week from the "experts" about David Tua's performance in his heavyweight boxing bout in Atlantic City last weekend, we'd be convinced that, although the official verdict was a draw, he was thrashed by Monty Two Gunz Barrett.

There was Bob Jones, who made his millions from property deals – and somehow secured a knighthood in the process – arguing that David didn't win a single round, was never much good and is now washed up.

Then we had Lance Revell, who actually does have some boxing credentials, suggesting that the judges must have been bribed not to announce Two Gunz as the winner.

And we've had various sports presenters – Tony Veitch for example – referring to the fight and the result as farcical.

Even someone as bright and competent as Jenny-May Coffin was silly enough to go on screen and, with a straight face, announce that the bout was a farce.

In reality the only farce was the response of those experts.

Anyone who paid attention to the fight would have observed that, although David wasn't at his best, he still dominated the early rounds, came close to nailing his opponent several times and would've got a clear-cut verdict if he'd been more composed in the final round.

Naturally, he and thousands of Kiwi supporters were disappointed with his performance.

He didn't have the fire we were hoping to see.

And there wasn't the same ruthless killer instinct that has led him to the knockout wins he's had against a number of top-class heavyweights.

But, as became clear as the fight wore on, Barrett is no mug.

He's a tall, well-conditioned, experienced, and clever boxer who made it hard, even impossible at times for David to unleash and land his most dangerous artillery.

And seeing it was his last fight he had a special incentive to finish the Two Gunz career with a flourish.

None of that adds up to anything like a farce. But it's a different story when you consider the performance of the critics.

What is it about so many journalists and commentators that makes them distort and misrepresent what they see?

Maybe they figure that if they tweak or even ignore the facts they can come up with a better story.

But the best stories and the best observations come from those who stay true to what they see. That's what makes Grant Fox's rugby comments so valuable. Ian Smith's too. And Peter Sterling and Allan McLaughlin when it comes to rugby league.

Auckland Stuff.co.nz, 23rd July 2010