I’ve never made any secret of the fact that Misfits Boxing isn’t for me.
I would much rather watch two professional boxers competing for meaningful titles than celebrities and social media personalities stepping into a boxing ring.
However, I’ve always accepted that Misfits Boxing has an audience. People enjoy it, buy tickets and watch the events. If that’s what they want from boxing, who am I to tell them otherwise?
But after hearing about the controversy surrounding Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs, I decided to watch the contest myself.
And having watched all four rounds, I can understand why the crowd was booing.
The fight ended in a split draw, but I genuinely struggle to understand how Joey Essex managed to get anything out of it.
On my scorecard, Dapper Laughs won three rounds to one.
But while I disagree with the decision, I’m not going to start throwing around accusations that the fight was fixed.
Because the problem with Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs isn’t necessarily Misfits Boxing.
It’s a problem that has been damaging professional boxing for years.
Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs: How Did I Score the Fight?
Let’s get one thing out of the way.
I didn’t think Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs was particularly entertaining.
There wasn’t much quality on display, and neither man produced anything that would make me want to watch the contest again.
But that’s hardly surprising.
These aren’t experienced professional boxers. They’re entertainers stepping into a boxing ring, and the standard is inevitably going to reflect that.
However, just because the standard isn’t particularly high doesn’t mean we should abandon the basic principles of judging a fight.
I gave Joey Essex the opening round.
After that, I thought Dapper Laughs did enough to win each of the remaining three.
My scorecard was straightforward:
- Round 1: Joey Essex — 10–9
- Round 2: Dapper Laughs — 10–9
- Round 3: Dapper Laughs — 10–9
- Round 4: Dapper Laughs — 10–9
Final score: Dapper Laughs 39–37 Joey Essex.
That’s how I saw it.
I’m not suggesting every boxing supporter must agree with my scorecard. Judging involves interpretation, and somebody watching the same contest might reasonably see a close round differently.
But personally, I couldn’t find a second round to give Essex, never mind enough to justify a draw.
And judging by the reaction inside the venue, plenty of spectators were equally unimpressed with the result.
The question is whether that makes the decision controversial or something more sinister.
Those are two very different things.
Misfits Boxing Has Never Been My Idea of Boxing
I’ve written about Misfits Boxing before, and my opinion hasn’t particularly changed.
I understand why the organisation exists.
Celebrity boxing attracts attention, creates headlines and brings in an audience that might not otherwise watch the sport.
From a business perspective, I can understand the attraction.
But that doesn’t mean I have to enjoy it.
When I watch boxing, I want to see fighters who have spent years developing their skills, learning their trade and working towards something meaningful.
I want to see competitive contests between people who understand the technical and tactical demands of the sport.
That’s why I previously questioned whether Misfits Boxing represents a new era or simply another passing fad.
The organisation has undoubtedly established itself as an entertainment product.
Whether that makes it a positive development for boxing is another question entirely.
And here’s something I think gets overlooked.
You can dislike Misfits Boxing without wanting it to fail.
I don’t particularly care for the product, but I’m not offended that other people enjoy it.
If somebody wants to spend their money watching Joey Essex fight Dapper Laughs, that’s their decision.
My criticism isn’t directed at the people buying tickets.
It’s directed at the suggestion that we should somehow accept questionable judging simply because the participants are celebrities.
If you’re going to stage a boxing contest, you should expect the result to be judged properly.
Bad Boxing Decisions Didn’t Begin With Misfits
This is where I think the reaction to Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs needs a little perspective.
Some people seem surprised that a controversial decision could happen on a Misfits Boxing card.
Why?
We’ve been watching questionable decisions in professional boxing for decades.
And I’m not talking about obscure contests that nobody remembers.
I’m talking about major championship fights involving some of the biggest names in the sport.
Take Lennox Lewis against Evander Holyfield in their first heavyweight unification fight in 1999.
Lewis appeared to have done more than enough to win, yet the contest was declared a draw.
The decision caused enormous controversy and became one of the most frequently cited examples of questionable judging in heavyweight boxing.
Then there’s Manny Pacquiao against Timothy Bradley in 2012.
Pacquiao appeared to control much of the contest, but Bradley was awarded a split-decision victory.
Again, the reaction was one of disbelief.
These weren’t celebrity exhibitions or internet personalities trying their hand at boxing.
They were elite professional fighters competing at the highest level.
Yet the judging still became the biggest talking point.
So why would anybody assume that Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs would somehow be immune from the same problem?
Poor judging isn’t exclusive to Misfits Boxing. It’s a problem throughout the sport.
And pretending otherwise lets professional boxing off the hook far too easily.
A Bad Decision Doesn’t Automatically Mean a Fixed Fight
This is probably the most important distinction in the entire argument.
Just because I thought Dapper Laughs clearly beat Joey Essex doesn’t mean I’m going to accuse anybody of fixing the contest.
That’s a serious allegation.
And serious allegations require evidence.
There is an enormous difference between saying a judge got a decision wrong and suggesting that judge deliberately manipulated the result.
Boxing is a subjective sport.
Unlike football, where a goal either crosses the line or it doesn’t, boxing requires judges to interpret what happens during each round.
They must consider clean punching, effective aggression, defence and ring generalship.
I’ve previously explored how judges score boxing fights, and the reality is that two people can watch the same three minutes and reach different conclusions.
One judge might favour the fighter landing the cleaner punches.
Another might believe the opponent was controlling the contest more effectively.
That doesn’t automatically mean either judge is dishonest.
Of course, there’s a limit to how far that explanation can go.
When a scorecard appears completely disconnected from what happened inside the ring, supporters have every right to question it.
But questioning a decision and alleging corruption are not the same thing.
I thought Dapper Laughs won.
The judges didn’t produce that result.
That makes it a decision I disagree with, not proof of a conspiracy.
And unless somebody produces actual evidence of wrongdoing, I think that’s where the accusation should stop.
The Problem With Boxing’s Scoring System
One of boxing’s biggest weaknesses is that supporters are often expected to accept a decision without receiving much of an explanation.
The judges hand in their scorecards.
The result is announced.
And that’s usually the end of their involvement as far as the public is concerned.
If a decision is controversial, everybody else spends the following days arguing about what happened.
The fighters defend themselves.
Promoters offer their opinions.
Supporters debate individual rounds.
Meanwhile, the people responsible for the scores rarely explain their reasoning publicly.
That’s a problem.
The 10-point must system used in boxing is relatively straightforward to understand.
The boxer who wins a round normally receives ten points, while the loser receives nine or fewer.
But understanding the numbers isn’t the same as understanding why a particular fighter was awarded a round.
And that distinction matters.
In Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs, I saw one fighter winning the opening round and the other taking the next three.
Somebody else might have seen two rounds apiece.
That’s fine.
But when the official result causes widespread disagreement, surely it’s reasonable to ask how the judges reached their conclusions?
I’m not suggesting judges should be subjected to abuse or forced to defend themselves against every angry supporter.
But greater transparency would help.
If judges were required to explain particularly controversial scorecards through a properly managed review process, perhaps supporters would have more confidence in the system.
It wouldn’t eliminate disagreements.
Nothing will.
But it might help distinguish genuine differences of interpretation from poor judging.
And that’s something boxing desperately needs.
Misfits Boxing Still Has a Responsibility
Now, none of this means Misfits Boxing should escape criticism.
If an organisation wants to stage boxing contests, employ officials and announce competitive results, it has a responsibility to take those elements seriously.
You cannot promote a contest as a genuine sporting competition and then expect everybody to shrug their shoulders when the result appears questionable.
Entertainment might be the selling point, but sporting credibility still matters.
Otherwise, why bother announcing a winner?
Why employ judges?
Why ask the audience to invest in the contest as a competition rather than simply watching two celebrities exchange punches?
I’ve previously discussed whether Misfits Boxing has a genuine future within the sport.
For me, that future depends partly on whether the organisation wants to be taken seriously as boxing or remain primarily an entertainment spectacle.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with choosing entertainment.
But you cannot have it both ways.
If the result matters enough to announce officially, the judging should matter enough to scrutinise.
That applies whether the fighters are Joey Essex and Dapper Laughs or two undefeated world champions.
Boxing Needs Better Judging, Not More Conspiracy Theories
What frustrates me about controversial boxing decisions is how quickly the discussion moves away from the actual problem.
Instead of examining the scoring, people start making accusations.
The fight was fixed.
The judges were bought.
The promoter wanted a particular result.
Sometimes those claims spread so quickly that the original contest becomes almost irrelevant.
But accusations without evidence don’t improve judging.
They simply create more suspicion.
And boxing already has enough problems with public confidence without everybody assuming corruption whenever a decision goes against their preferred fighter.
That doesn’t mean we should be naive.
Boxing has a complicated history, and concerns about integrity deserve to be taken seriously.
But if we’re going to challenge questionable decisions, we need to do it properly.
We should be asking whether judges are adequately trained, whether their performances are reviewed and whether governing bodies are doing enough to maintain consistent standards.
We should also be asking why controversial scorecards so rarely lead to meaningful public explanations.
Those questions are considerably more useful than automatically declaring every disputed result a fix.
And they’re just as relevant to professional boxing as they are to Misfits.
Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs Exposes a Bigger Boxing Problem
I watched Joey Essex vs Dapper Laughs because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
Having watched it, I still don’t particularly like Misfits Boxing.
I didn’t think the contest was especially entertaining.
And I certainly didn’t agree with the result.
For me, Dapper Laughs won three rounds to one and should have had his hand raised.
But I’m not going to pretend that this is some uniquely embarrassing moment for Misfits Boxing.
Professional boxing has produced far more controversial decisions involving far better fighters and much more significant titles.
That’s the bigger issue.
We can criticise Misfits for the quality of its entertainment, question whether celebrity boxing benefits the sport and disagree with the judges who scored this particular contest.
But blaming Misfits for a problem that has existed throughout boxing for generations misses the point.
I don’t think Joey Essex deserved a draw. But I also don’t believe that disagreeing with a decision gives me the right to accuse somebody of fixing a fight.
Sometimes a bad decision is simply a bad decision.
And until boxing finds a better way of holding its judges accountable, we’re going to keep having the same arguments, regardless of who’s standing inside the ring.
Over to You: Was Dapper Laughs Robbed?
I had Dapper Laughs beating Joey Essex 39–37, but did you see it differently?
Was the split draw defensible, or did the judges get it badly wrong? And more importantly, does boxing need greater transparency when controversial decisions are announced?
Have your say in the comments below. I want to hear your scorecards, not just whether you like or dislike Misfits Boxing.
If you agree with my argument, or think I’ve got it completely wrong, share this article with other boxing fans and get the debate going.
And for more independent boxing opinions, analysis and discussion without the unnecessary hype, visit CMBoxing.
Because whether we’re talking about world champions or celebrities, boxing deserves to be judged fairly.