There has been quite a fuss over the points verdict that unbeaten heavyweight Tyson Fury received over John McDermott in their earnest and entertaining 10-rounder on Friday night.

In Britain, the referee is often also the sole judge, depending on the status of a bout — this was one was for the English (not British) title and therefore did not qualify for the three judges system.

Perhaps three judges would not have seen the bout the same way as Mr. O’Connor. It is something for the British Boxing Board of Control to consider.

McDermott’s promoter, Frank Maloney, was understandably outraged over the verdict. The Sky TV commentary team of Jim Watt and Adam Smith felt that McDermott had won and the verdict was booed. Boxing Monthly editor Glyn Leach told me he’d canvassed opinion within the British fight trade and couldn’t find anyone who thought Fury won, although he had yet to speak to anyone in the Fury camp.

This seemed to me to be a highly competitive fight and I think the main problem was the referee’s 98-92 scoring. There seemed no way that Fury had won eight of the 10 rounds.

McDermott fought one of his best fights. He pressed forward and landed the heavier, more eye-catching blows. The towering, 6ft 8in Fury did some good work with the jab, sometimes jolting back McDermott’s head, and he put in some fast bursts of punches to the body. McDermott seemed to be forging ahead but Fury rallied in the last two rounds and finally seemed to hurt his more experienced opponent when he fought off fatigue to land right uppercuts in an exciting last round.

I came up with a 95-95 draw but I had the sense that McDermott had done enough. Jim Watt’s score of 96-94 in favour of McDermott was just one round away from a draw. The fight was close. The debate here, in my opinion, should be focused on the referee’s outlandish interpretation of what had happened, not on the fight itself.