Against The Grain - Your Score Cards

[Russell]

What non-majority views do you subscribe to? As in fights that you feel fighter A won where the majority of fight fans thought fighter B won, and clearly at that.

Some examples.

Evander Holyfield over Lennox Lewis in their second fight.

Barrera over Marquez.

I've seen some people say they feel Frazier won the second Ali fight.

Cesar Chavez over Whitaker.

Hopkin's/Wright being a draw.

So on and so forth. Why do you feel a certain fighter won, exactly? More detailed the bette.r

[DINAMITA]

I have watched Hopkins v Calzaghe many times, and I firmly believe Hopkins won the fight. I don't believe in this current trend of automatically awarding rounds for "workrate". Ineffective aggression vs impenetrable and excellent defence does not = a round won by the aggressor simply for moving his arms around a lot. Hitting gloves, forearms and fresh air are not scoring shots. Hopkins was lethargic due to lack of stamina at his age, but the limited amount of crisp, clean, effective work that he did do was enough to edge it by a point over the piece IMO. Calzaghe barely landed a clean shot the entire night. That's just not enough to win a boxing match over 12 rounds, no matter if he did all the running and forced the fight or not.

We risk turning boxing from the Sweet Science to a fitness contest if we allow the artisan to triumph over the artist!

[DINAMITA]

What non-majority views do you subscribe to? As in fights that you feel fighter A won where the majority of fight fans thought fighter B won, and clearly at that.

Some examples.

Evander Holyfield over Lennox Lewis in their second fight.

Barrera over Marquez.

I've seen some people say they feel Frazier won the second Ali fight.

Cesar Chavez over Whitaker.

Hopkin's/Wright being a draw.

So on and so forth. Why do you feel a certain fighter won, exactly? More detailed the bette.r

:admin:lol: Anyone who goes with that one should log out never to return. 118-110 Sweet Pea!

[GPater11093]

ive scored afew weird scores but i normally pick the iwnner but just by a wider margin

i thought Winky actually beat Hopkins when i watched it live

[Thread Stealer]

I had Shavers beating Ali 144-141. Harder and cleaner shots than Ali's flurries (which often just caught gloves).

I agree with Dina about Hopkins winning against Calzaghe. Cleaner shots rather than Calzaghe's flurries. I don't buy that Compubox shit.

[teeto]

I had Hopkins beating Calzaghe by 1 point.

[rekcutnevets]

Hopkins dropped Calzaghe in round 1. Since Hopkins stayed on his feet throughout, and was not dominated in any round, he only needed to win 5 rounds after the 1st to win. It is hard to believe that more people do not have him doing just that.

I don't think Barrera lost any of his fights with Morales, though a draw could be argued in their 2nd.

George Foreman won at least 3, if not 4, out of 9 rounds before stopping Michael Moorer in the 10th.

Marquez was winning handily when he stopped Diaz a few nights ago.

That Jermain Taylor won both fights against Hopkins, and somehow looked like the worse figher while doing so.

That Barrera nearly won his rematch with Pacquiao.

[OBCboxer]

I have watched Hopkins v Calzaghe many times, and I firmly believe Hopkins won the fight. I don't believe in this current trend of automatically awarding rounds for "workrate". Ineffective aggression vs impenetrable and excellent defence does not = a round won by the aggressor simply for moving his arms around a lot. Hitting gloves, forearms and fresh air are not scoring shots. Hopkins was lethargic due to lack of stamina at his age, but the limited amount of crisp, clean, effective work that he did do was enough to edge it by a point over the piece IMO. Calzaghe barely landed a clean shot the entire night. That's just not enough to win a boxing match over 12 rounds, no matter if he did all the running and forced the fight or not.

We risk turning boxing from the Sweet Science to a fitness contest if we allow the artisan to triumph over the artist!

What are you nuts?

[OBCboxer]

I have only seen Hopkins-Calzaghe once and that was live. I need to sit through it again, as boring as it was.

[AussieMauler]

:admin:lol: Anyone who goes with that one should log out never to return. 118-110 Sweet Pea!


i agree - but i also think the same about the Holy - Lewis fight. Lewis by so far its almost comical.

but i guess the thread was giving examples not true belief....at least i hope not

[Russell]

I had Shavers beating Ali 144-141. Harder and cleaner shots than Ali's flurries (which often just caught gloves).



Quite a few people actually had Shaver's winning that fight. I don't know if it's semi-irrelevent because of how far gone Ali was or simply a case of not many people seeing it.

[DINAMITA]

I should add that I agree with Rekcutnevets, I don't think Barrera lost any of the three fights with Morales (one of the main reasons I will always rank MAB slightly higher p4p).

[Russell]

I forget my exact score for Mercer/Holyfield but I either had it a draw or a one point win for Holyfield.

I remember even when Mercer took a knee after having a rib broken he got up, and in my opinion, won the round.

[Thread Stealer]

Quite a few people actually had Shaver's winning that fight. I don't know if it's semi-irrelevent because of how far gone Ali was or simply a case of not many people seeing it.

Ali was shot or borderline shot by then, but still, I felt Shavers deserved the win and to have the honor of being the HW champ at one point.

I've read an interview where Shavers said he agreed with the decision.

Strange, because I felt I was being a tad generous to Ali with giving him 6 rounds.

When I've mentioned it before, some have agreed, while others felt Ali deserved the win.

[Rui]

I had Wright/Hopkins a draw.

I had Toney beating Tiberi by a point.

[Russell]

Ali was shot or borderline shot by then, but still, I felt Shavers deserved the win and to have the honor of being the HW champ at one point.

I've read an interview where Shavers said he agreed with the decision.

Strange, because I felt I was being a tad generous to Ali with giving him 6 rounds.

When I've mentioned it before, some have agreed, while others felt Ali deserved the win.

Some fighters are very, very graceful after losing a big fight. Even more so then they should be.

[Henke67]

If you don't score the "knock-down" in round 12 of their first fight, I don't have MAB beating Morales in any of their fights.
I don't think Oscar beat Tito.

[teeto]

I actually went with what was at the time of the bouts sort of a general consensus the MAB-EM fights. First one i had Barrera, then Morales, then Barrera, i know its not a general consensus anymore, but at the time they were largely viewed that way.

I had Pintor-Zarate very close first time round, but forgot who i had ahead (was sure it was Pintor though), watched it again and had Zarate winning.

Spinks beat Taylor

[teeto]

I had Oscar ahead by 2 against Tito, im a big Tito fan and the biggest Oscar sceptic on ESB.

[Henke67]

I should probably point out that Tito and Morales are my two favourite fighters ever - so bias probably comes into my scoring of their fights.
I found a lot of the Barrera-Morales rounds tough to score but I scored the second fight 115-113 for Eric and I had their third fight dead level.
It's tough to justify Tito beating Oscar but through my Trinidad-tinted glasses, I can just about manage it! I also had Marquez taking 9 rounds against MAB, while I gather most people have it much closer.

[DINAMITA]

I can't remember exactly, but I believe I had Ray Mercer edging Lennox Lewis. I'd really need to watch it again before making a definitive stance on it though.

[Bokaj]

I didn't see Hagler-Duran as close at all point wise. Duran was competitive in most rounds, but it was hard to see any rounds that he won clearly outside his good spell in 11-13.

[Thread Stealer]

I didn't see Hagler-Duran as close at all point wise. Duran was competitive in most rounds, but it was hard to see any rounds that he won clearly outside his good spell in 11-13.

Most people agree that Hagler-Duran wasn't really as close as the judges had it. I had it 10-4-1 for Hagler.

Duran also got too many rounds against Benitez.

[sweet_scientist]

Fights where Ive gone against conventional wisdom:

Had Eddie Davis beating Michael Spinks by a point.

Had Winky Wright drawing with Bernard Hopkins.

Had DLH beating Floyd Mayweather by a point.

I had Rodrigo Valdez beating Carlos Monzon in their second fight by a point (fuck will I catch heat for that!).

Had Virgil Hill drawing with Thomas Hearns.

Had Roberto Duran drawing with Iran Barkley.

Had all three Barrera-Morales fights scored even.

Had Julio Cesar Chavez vs. Frankie Randall I scored even (though I rewatched it about 3 or 4 months ago and I had Randall by a point this time).

Had Fernando Vargas vs. Winky Wright scored a draw.

Had Stevie Johnston beating Jose Luis Castillo both times, 116-111 for the first fight and 115-114 the second time round.

Had Rosendo Alvarez winning the first Ricardo Lopez fight and drawing the second fight.

I had Ismael Laguna beating Ken Buchanan in their first fight by 3 points.

I had the Reggie Johnson vs. James Toney fight even.

I had Jose Luis Ramirez beating Alexis Arguello by 2 points.

I had Eusebio Pedroza drawing the first Rocky Lockridge fight and the Juan Laporte fight.

I had Betulio Gonzalez beating Masao Ohba by a point.


Yeah, I can't score....

[DINAMITA]

Fights where Ive gone against conventional wisdom:

Had Eddie Davis beating Michael Spinks by a point.

Had Winky Wright drawing with Bernard Hopkins.

Had DLH beating Floyd Mayweather by a point.

I had Rodrigo Valdez beating Carlos Monzon in their second fight by a point (fuck will I catch heat for that!).

Had Virgil Hill drawing with Thomas Hearns.

Had Roberto Duran drawing with Iran Barkley.

Had all three Barrera-Morales fights scored even.

Had Julio Cesar Chavez vs. Frankie Randall I scored even (though I rewatched it about 3 or 4 months ago and I had Randall by a point this time).

Had Fernando Vargas vs. Winky Wright scored a draw.

Had Stevie Johnston beating Jose Luis Castillo both times, 116-111 for the first fight and 115-114 the second time round.

Had Rosendo Alvarez winning the first Ricardo Lopez fight and drawing the second fight.

I had Ismael Laguna beating Ken Buchanan in their first fight by 3 points.

I had the Reggie Johnson vs. James Toney fight even.

I had Jose Luis Ramirez beating Alexis Arguello by 2 points.

I had Eusebio Pedroza drawing the first Rocky Lockridge fight and the Juan Laporte fight.

I had Betulio Gonzalez beating Masao Ohba by a point.


Yeah, I can't score....

Hey mate, some quite surprising scorecards there I must say (not that I'd ever kick up a stink over such things, judging fights is the most subjective thing in the world I have learned).

Two comments though:

- I am glad to see someone with your vast knowledge believes Oscar beat Floyd. I'm not sure I did, but the way that fight has been retrospectively turned into some sort of Mayweather masterpiece is a fucking joke. Mayweather was mediocre. He faced a well past-prime Oscar and still struggled woefully with Oscar's jab and strength until the Olden Boy tired and lost his grip on the contest. It was one of the most languid, lethargic, uninspiring performances of PBF's career, and had he lost he could have had no complaints.

- Do you have a sort of philosophy that you adhere to when scoring fights? For instance, I believe in even scoring unless there has been a clear winner. I do not understand nor believe in nor even respect the attitude that seems to be prevalent in boxing that a 10-10 is an undesirable thing, and leads people to the arbitrary gifting of rounds to one fighter or the other simply to avoid an even round. If I genuinely believe neither man has gained a clear edge over the other, I will score it even without a second thought, and this can lead to 3,4,5 per fight (I had 5 in Pac-JMM I), but I believe it is correct - and this is what often leads to my scores being different from the majority/consensus. Also, what I look for in a fight is clean, clear, effective, significant punching, and not mere workrate. As a fan of defensive boxing, I refuse to give people rounds based on who was walking forward more or who was throwing more, if they weren't actually scoring.

Those are my scoring criteria and I think that's why I sometimes have scores that are different to the norm, but I believe it is the right true way so I will continue to do so.

I think it would be interesting to see if your strange scores are because of a similar philosophy/set of personal criteria.

Care to elaborate mate? :good

[Bokaj]

By the way, the last time I scored Hearns-Leonard I, I had Leonard just one point behind going into the 14:th. With that standing he would most probably have won even if the fight hadn't been stopped.

[sweet_scientist]

Hey mate, some quite surprising scorecards there I must say (not that I'd ever kick up a stink over such things, judging fights is the most subjective thing in the world I have learned).


Two comments though:

- I am glad to see someone with your vast knowledge believes Oscar beat Floyd. I'm not sure I did, but the way that fight has been retrospectively turned into some sort of Mayweather masterpiece is a fucking joke. Mayweather was mediocre. He faced a well past-prime Oscar and still struggled woefully with Oscar's jab and strength until the Olden Boy tired and lost his grip on the contest. It was one of the most languid, lethargic, uninspiring performances of PBF's career, and had he lost he could have had no complaints.

Cheers Dina. Always baffled me how some guys have this fight so wide for Mayweather and consider it a great performance and a schooling. I must have been watching another fight. Floyd was dismal, I agree. Threw punches one at a time and made Oscar look defensively outstanding (which he isn't) simply because he was able to pick off most of his shots with a standard high guard. I have no issue with anyone saying Mayweather won by 2 or 3 points, as Oscar was languid and lethargic himself, and there were some close rounds in there for sure, but one thing he didn't do, was school Oscar in anyway. If anything, he showed just how much trouble he'd be in if he faced a fresher Oscar of a decade before.

- Do you have a sort of philosophy that you adhere to when scoring fights? For instance, I believe in even scoring unless there has been a clear winner. I do not understand nor believe in nor even respect the attitude that seems to be prevalent in boxing that a 10-10 is an undesirable thing, and leads people to the arbitrary gifting of rounds to one fighter or the other simply to avoid an even round. If I genuinely believe neither man has gained a clear edge over the other, I will score it even without a second thought, and this can lead to 3,4,5 per fight (I had 5 in Pac-JMM I), but I believe it is correct - and this is what often leads to my scores being different from the majority/consensus. Also, what I look for in a fight is clean, clear, effective, significant punching, and not mere workrate. As a fan of defensive boxing, I refuse to give people rounds based on who was walking forward more or who was throwing more, if they weren't actually scoring.

Those are my scoring criteria and I think that's why I sometimes have scores that are different to the norm, but I believe it is the right true way so I will continue to do so.

I think it would be interesting to see if your strange scores are because of a similar philosophy/set of personal criteria.

Care to elaborate mate? :goodNo need to elaborate mate, you have described my scoring philosophy to a T :good

[PopeJackson]

I have watched Hopkins v Calzaghe many times, and I firmly believe Hopkins won the fight. I don't believe in this current trend of automatically awarding rounds for "workrate". Ineffective aggression vs impenetrable and excellent defence does not = a round won by the aggressor simply for moving his arms around a lot. Hitting gloves, forearms and fresh air are not scoring shots. Hopkins was lethargic due to lack of stamina at his age, but the limited amount of crisp, clean, effective work that he did do was enough to edge it by a point over the piece IMO. Calzaghe barely landed a clean shot the entire night. That's just not enough to win a boxing match over 12 rounds, no matter if he did all the running and forced the fight or not.

We risk turning boxing from the Sweet Science to a fitness contest if we allow the artisan to triumph over the artist!

Good post. The first time I watched the fight I scored it for Calzaghe, but upon watching it again I can really see the argument that Hopkins won.

[TommyV]

I thought Leonard clearly beat Hagler.

I also had Winky v Hopkins a 114-114 draw.

[DINAMITA]

Cheers Dina. Always baffled me how some guys have this fight so wide for Mayweather and consider it a great performance and a schooling. I must have been watching another fight. Floyd was dismal, I agree. Threw punches one at a time and made Oscar looked defensively outstanding (which he isn't) simply because he was able to pick off most of his shots with a standard high guard. I have no issue with anyone saying Mayweather won by 2 or 3 points, as Oscar was languid and lethargic himself, and there were some close rounds in there for sure, but one thing he didn't do, was school Oscar in anyway. If anything, he showed just how much trouble he'd be in if he faced a fresher Oscar of a decade before.

My sentiments exactly. I thought it was a performance very like Leonard v Hearns I (where the lethargy of the eventual victor cannot be accounted for), except that Leonard was facing superior opposition and had the skills and the fire to produce an all-time great lethal finish. Floyd had a tired, past-prime fighter in the ring with him and just didn't have the offensive arsenal or seemingly the will to do likewise.

For me there's very little doubt that peak Oscar beats peak Floyd at 147. I don't really understand what people have seen in Floyd's brief and underwhelming welterweight career to make them think that the Pretty Boy could compete with proven quality welterweights like Oscar, Tito, Mosley 2000, the Sweet Pea of '93 and possibly even Quartey. Floyd at 147 was a pale imitation of the 130 version IMO.


No need to elaborate mate, you have described my scoring philosophy to a T :good

That's good to know in an age where the masses seem to worship the Gods of Workrate and "Aggression" (effective or otherwise)!! :good

[GPater11093]

i think FMJ handily outpointed ODLH

also i had hagler over leonard

calzaghe over hopkins

[Drew101]

I have Leonard-Duran 1 being a very close fight whenever I score it, and called it a draw the last time I watched the fight in its entirety. Part of this is due to the fact that I scored the last three rounds for Leonard, and part of this is that I guess I just don't buy into the notion that Duran did all the good work over the course of the first 12 rounds, while Leonard did nothing in return.

I actually thought Forrest did enough to earn a draw against Quartey.

[DINAMITA]

i think FMJ handily outpointed ODLH

also i had hagler over leonard

calzaghe over hopkins

Erm, I don't think believing Mayweather beat Oscar and Calzaghe beat Hopkins really qualify as "Against The Grain" mate.

[la-califa]

I had Holmes over Michael Spinks, BOTH times! Mike Weaver beat Dokes in thier rematch.

[GPater11093]

Erm, I don't think believing Mayweather beat Oscar and Calzaghe beat Hopkins really qualify as "Against The Grain" mate.

suppose but alot of people do think Oscar won or FMJ closely but i had FMJ by about 4 rounds or something no where near close

also i had marquez-pac all of tjem by 1 or 2 rounds to JMM

[MrMarvel]

How does a person watch a fight like Leonard-Hearns I and come up with one point difference going into the 14th round? I'm curious to know what the thinking is in such a case.

[Thread Stealer]

How does a person watch a fight like Leonard-Hearns I and come up with one point difference going into the 14th round? I'm curious to know what the thinking is in such a case.

Hearns wins 4 of the first 5, Leonard wins the next 3, Hearns takes 9-12, Leonard takes 13.

8-5, with a two point round in 13 so that's a two-point difference.

Maybe round 7 was a 10-8 on one's card, or one of the Hearns rounds, they had 10-10.

[Godfather]

Its been said before but I had Hopkins edging the Calzaghe bout.

Collazo easily out-pointing Berto

Didnt have Margarito winning any of the first 6 rounds against Cotto. Round 2 was 10-10.

Thinking about it these dont seem to be too controversial

[janitor]

I had Gatti edging Mayweather.

[196osh]

I had Gatti edging Mayweather.

:lol:

I thought that Graham did enough to edge Jackson too. :good

[Bokaj]

Hearns wins 4 of the first 5, Leonard wins the next 3, Hearns takes 9-12, Leonard takes 13.

8-5, with a two point round in 13 so that's a two-point difference.

Maybe round 7 was a 10-8 on one's card, or one of the Hearns rounds, they had 10-10.

That's exactly how I had it.

[Bokaj]

How does a person watch a fight like Leonard-Hearns I and come up with one point difference going into the 14th round? I'm curious to know what the thinking is in such a case.

Look at Thread Stealer above to see how I scored. I had 7 as a 10-8 round for Leonard, which none of the judges had. But Leonard beat Tommmy from pillar to post in that round without really taking anything in return. So I called it 10-8, even though there was no KD.

But I'd have no real problems if someone thinks Hearns should have been 3 points ahead going into the 14:th (more than so I feel is a stretch), but even then Leonard would have a good chance of edging it or at least getting a draw if it went to the cards.

By the way, I think that Hearns won the rematch with 4 or 5 points.

[Mendoza]

Holmes over Spinks in the 2nd fight.

[Russell]

Holmes over Spinks in the 2nd fight.

That's not a particularly unusual opinion.

[WhataRock]

That's not a particularly unusual opinion.

Agreed.

I had Casamayor beating Diamond...scored it the one and only time Ive seen the fight though .

[JohnThomas1]

Holmes over Spinks in the 2nd fight.

That's the majority view :huh

[PH|LLA]

I had Sam Peter beating Toney 116-111 in the first fight. Scoring objectively and not paying attention to the commentators. I thought he landed the cleaner, more effective punches and won quite clearly. I like Toney, but that's how I scored it. Thats also how 2 of the 3 judges scored it but most fans think toney was robbed

[GPater11093]

jose armando santa cruz easily outpointing Casamoyer

[Russell]

I thought Mercer beat Lennox fairly cleanly. The entire fight was very, very competitive but I didn't agonize over who to give the rounds too very often.

Lennox was the one giving ground the entire fight, being pushed back while Mercer was applying consistent, effective pressure.

I don't know how you can't credit a fighter who landing such effective, hard jabs a entire fight as well. Not to mention Lennox visibly being shaken more then once while Mercer was barely ever even slowed down. They were both landing bombs but Mercer's were more effective.

Look at the condition of the two guys faces at the end as well.

[DINAMITA]

I thought Mercer beat Lennox fairly cleanly. The entire fight was very, very competitive but I didn't agonize over who to give the rounds too very often.

Lennox was the one giving ground the entire fight, being pushed back while Mercer was applying consistent, effective pressure.

I don't know how you can't credit a fighter who landing such effective, hard jabs a entire fight as well. Not to mention Lennox visibly being shaken more then once while Mercer was barely ever even slowed down. They were both landing bombs but Mercer's were more effective.

Look at the condition of the two guys faces at the end as well.

That's pretty much my (hazy) memory of that fight.

[GPater11093]

i gave margarito the second round when he fought Cotto

also i had Margarito winning against Williams by one point but that was blatant favouritism on my behalf

i had chris john widely beating juarez

[Bill Butcher]

:admin:lol: Anyone who goes with that one should log out never to return. 118-110 Sweet Pea!

Yep... Im a big Chavez fan (huge Whitaker fan too actually) but I gave Whitaker 8 or 9 rds.

[Bill Butcher]

1 fight that most thought was the correct decision & that I firmly believe 1 judge got correct was Morales-Barrera III.... I thought it was the easiest of the 3 fights to score & I had it 6-6 (114-114)

I cant understand how anyone can say this was a `clear` Barrera win, it baffles me.

[Duodenum]

I gave Jimmy Young the first three rounds, and round 14 against Ali. Only round 15 was even in my view. I had Muhammad sweeping all the rounds from four to 13 on initiative and aggression, with round 12 being a two point round by virtue of the referee ruled knockdown. Hence, my final score of 146-139 Ali.

My scorecard for Ali-Berbick was 97-93 for Ali. I felt he controlled the movement in the ring (generalship), effectively smothered Berbick's flailing to his body on the inside with his arms, and landed more of the cleaner, straighter punches. From long range, he scored well with some hard head shots and jabs, while very rarely getting hit in the head himself, displaying some good remaining skill, and making efficient use of his reach.

Berbick was more aggressive, but I didn't think it was effective aggression. The three rounds I had him winning were rounds Muhammad clearly took off. Ali was much better against Trevor than he was against Holmes. Although clearly misfiring (as he was in the Spinks rematch), it was obvious why Berbick told him afterwards, "My head and neck are sore. It wasn't like that with Holmes." I think Muhammad's swan song was a better showing than Frazier's draw with Cummings. If they'd been boxing with masks on, so it couldn't be told who they were, I think the judges may well have scored it for Ali.

[MrMarvel]

Hearns wins 4 of the first 5, Leonard wins the next 3, Hearns takes 9-12, Leonard takes 13.

8-5, with a two point round in 13 so that's a two-point difference.

Maybe round 7 was a 10-8 on one's card, or one of the Hearns rounds, they had 10-10.

Thanks for your response. I remember that Hearns swept the first five rounds. Hearns won the first two minutes of the 6th and held his own until the end of the round. Leonard surprised him with the hook later in the round, and Hearns was off balance, but he was giving as good as he was taking. Maybe you can give Leonard the round, but without a real dominant performance, I think it is proper to give the round to the fight who won most of the round. The 7th round was clearly Leonard's round, but it was definitely not a 10-8 round. I remember the 8th being pretty much even and Hearns reassuming control after that. It still seems difficult to have the fight close going into the 14th. If we give Leonard 4 rounds, that still leaves Hearns with a 5-point or 4-point lead.

I should say up front that I disagree with the "if you have points use them" argument. This would allow a boxer who loses most rounds to win a bout because judges were too generous in points awarded. The potential for abuse is too great. Judges need to be stingy with points. Even in the case of a knockdown, if the boxer knocked down wins most of the round in convincing fashion, it probably shouldn't be a 10-8 round, especially in the case of a flash knockdown.

[Bill Butcher]

I should add that I agree with Rekcutnevets, I don't think Barrera lost any of the three fights with Morales (one of the main reasons I will always rank MAB slightly higher p4p).

I can understand giving Barrera the 1st & 3rd fights, super close fights & in the case of fight 1, very hard to score.... BUT....

How anyone cannot see a clear Morales victory in fight 2 is beyond belief, Erik has a strong case to have won every rd except 9 & 12.

Ring generalship, clean punching, effective aggression & even defence in most rds all went Morales way in that fight.

Watch without sound.

[Bill Butcher]

If you don't score the "knock-down" in round 12 of their first fight, I don't have MAB beating Morales in any of their fights.

Good man.

1. That was not a KD in rd 12 of their 1st fight.
2. Morales was denied a legit KD in rd 7 of their 2nd fight.

I scored the 1st fight narrowly to Morales, the 2nd fight clearly to Morales & the 3rd fight dead even.

I have no probs with anyone giving MAB fights 1 & 3 but to give him fight 2 or say he won all 3 is plain delusional bullshit, nothing more IMHO.


Angola :fire

[Jear]

I gave Jimmy Young the first three rounds, and round 14 against Ali. Only round 15 was even in my view. I had Muhammad sweeping all the rounds from four to 13 on initiative and aggression, with round 12 being a two point round by virtue of the referee ruled knockdown. Hence, my final score of 146-139 Ali.

My scorecard for Ali-Berbick was 97-93 for Ali. I felt he controlled the movement in the ring (generalship), effectively smothered Berbick's flailing to his body on the inside with his arms, and landed more of the cleaner, straighter punches. From long range, he scored well with some hard head shots and jabs, while very rarely getting hit in the head himself, displaying some good remaining skill, and making efficient use of his reach.

Berbick was more aggressive, but I didn't think it was effective aggression. The three rounds I had him winning were rounds Muhammad clearly took off. Ali was much better against Trevor than he was against Holmes. Although clearly misfiring (as he was in the Spinks rematch), it was obvious why Berbick told him afterwards, "My head and neck are sore. It wasn't like that with Holmes." I think Muhammad's swan song was a better showing than Frazier's draw with Cummings. If they'd been boxing with masks on, so it couldn't be told who they were, I think the judges may well have scored it for Ali.


I am a big Ali fan so possibly a bit biased but I agree about the Young fight. Also had him comfortably over Doug Jones. Beating Shavers, and very close fight either way against Norton 3

[Drew101]

jose armando santa cruz easily outpointing Casamoyer

Most people had that view, save for the judges.

[My dinner with Conteh]

If they'd been boxing with masks on, so it couldn't be told who they were, I think the judges may well have scored it for Ali.

No.

[GPater11093]

Most people had that view, save for the judges.


oh didnt know i was just going on judges

that was a robbery then as big as pea vs chavez

[divac]

I can understand giving Barrera the 1st & 3rd fights, super close fights & in the case of fight 1, very hard to score.... BUT....

How anyone cannot see a clear Morales victory in fight 2 is beyond belief, Erik has a strong case to have won every rd except 9 & 12.

Ring generalship, clean punching, effective aggression & even defence in most rds all went Morales way in that fight.

Watch without sound.

Absolutely.....I thought it was the only fight of the trilogy that had a clear cut winner.......unfortunately boxing being boxing, the hand of the wrong fighter was raised!:nut

[My2Sense]

I've seen some people say they feel Frazier won the second Ali fight.


I'm one of those people.

At the very least, I feel the fight could've gone either way. Out of all Ali's "disputed" decisions, I'm aware that this one is by far the least disputed.


I thought Hopkins-Wright could've been a draw as well, though I would've had no arguments with a close decision for Hopkins.

No way Chavez beat Whitaker, but I thought the fight was somewhat closer than I lot of people make it out to be.

There seems to be two schools of thought on Barrera-Marquez: one that says it was a clear win for Marquez (the way the judges had it), and the other says it was a very close, hard to score fight. Personally I agree with the latter, though admittedly I haven't seen the fight since it happened.

[kmcc505]

Holyfield clearly won the 2nd Lewis fight, IMO anyway. I was shocked when they announced the score and so were a lot of people I was with at the time.

[Sweet Pea]

By the way, the last time I scored Hearns-Leonard I, I had Leonard just one point behind going into the 14:th. With that standing he would most probably have won even if the fight hadn't been stopped.
:yikes

[PhillyPhan69]

What non-majority views do you subscribe to? As in fights that you feel fighter A won where the majority of fight fans thought fighter B won, and clearly at that.

Some examples.

Evander Holyfield over Lennox Lewis in their second fight.

Barrera over Marquez.

I've seen some people say they feel Frazier won the second Ali fight.

Cesar Chavez over Whitaker.

Hopkin's/Wright being a draw.

So on and so forth. Why do you feel a certain fighter won, exactly? More detailed the bette.r

Oh well let the bashing begin...I still score Pea vs Chavez as a draw, and see it as a robbery in no way!

Not sure if this is against the common perception but I agree with the 1 judge who had mancini beating camacho as opposed to the other 2. I can't find any way that camacho wins that fight in umpteen veiwings??

[Mon43]

I have watched Hopkins v Calzaghe many times, and I firmly believe Hopkins won the fight. I don't believe in this current trend of automatically awarding rounds for "workrate". Ineffective aggression vs impenetrable and excellent defence does not = a round won by the aggressor simply for moving his arms around a lot. Hitting gloves, forearms and fresh air are not scoring shots. Hopkins was lethargic due to lack of stamina at his age, but the limited amount of crisp, clean, effective work that he did do was enough to edge it by a point over the piece IMO. Calzaghe barely landed a clean shot the entire night. That's just not enough to win a boxing match over 12 rounds, no matter if he did all the running and forced the fight or not.

We risk turning boxing from the Sweet Science to a fitness contest if we allow the artisan to triumph over the artist!

While I agree with the overall sentiment in the last line it is a real stretch to describe a lot of what Hopkins did in that fight as artistic. He spolied, held, faked low blows, generally did as much as he could to kill the opportunity of a spectacle.

Why he gets so much praise for this surprises me, the age factor means Hopkins has a more sympathtic audience for these tactics, the crafty veteran stealing back an advantage from his younger foe appeals, but the incredibly cynical nature of Hopkins showing did him no credit IMO.

I think both men, if honest would admit to displeasure at the overall quality of their performances. Perhaps their styles made that inevitable, both are excellent at neutralizing an opponents best work.

This board(or whatever medium replaces it) will still be debating who won the fight years from now, A majority tend to favour JC, but giving it to Hopkins is not unfathomable.


Just on the subject of the thread, I thought Hopkins-Wright was a lot closer than the scorecards stated, thought Floyd won far wider over DLH

[Russell]

I think he was hit low and decided to run with it. As in it wasn't devestating but he decided to take advantage of it.

Calzaghe obviously did stray low and getting slapped in the balls isn't particularly harmless.

[divac]

While I agree with the overall sentiment in the last line it is a real stretch to describe a lot of what Hopkins did in that fight as artistic. He spolied, held, faked low blows, generally did as much as he could to kill the opportunity of a spectacle.

Why he gets so much praise for this surprises me, the age factor means Hopkins has a more sympathtic audience for these tactics, the crafty veteran stealing back an advantage from his younger foe appeals, but the incredibly cynical nature of Hopkins showing did him no credit IMO.

I think both men, if honest would admit to displeasure at the overall quality of their performances. Perhaps their styles made that inevitable, both are excellent at neutralizing an opponents best work.

This board(or whatever medium replaces it) will still be debating who won the fight years from now, A majority tend to favour JC, but giving it to Hopkins is not unfathomable.


Just on the subject of the thread, I thought Hopkins-Wright was a lot closer than the scorecards stated, thought Floyd won far wider over DLH

I agree with most of this post.....

I'm in favor of judges not allowing a fighter to win a round against a busier fighter in the way that Hopkins attempted vs Calzaghe.....which is mainly connecting with 2 or 3 of the cleaner shots in the rounds, but spending the great majority of the round stalling fistic activity, while Calzaghe is the fighter working his hands and staying busy.....

I usually tend to favor the fighter that lands the clean connects, but not in a case like Hopkins when he is'nt in the mindset to create consistently on the offensive end.

You just cant have judges rewwarding Hopkins for the types of fights he displayed vs Calzaghe and prior to that Jermaine Taylor.......to award such performances, that would encourage other fighters to strictly win by using defensive tactics, to the detriment of seeing offensive boxing displays.......

There are'nt many true boxing fans to begin with, but to consistently see displays like the ones Hopkins created vs Calzaghe and Taylor, we'd be looking at drop of the poor fanbase we already have today.

Safety first types of performances are not good for boxing.....so yeah, there is a reason why the great majority of the time judges will not award a fighter a round strictly for his great defense.