Which official points decisions have you diagreed with in the past?

just watched marquez - john. another one to add to my list

M-J

1: 10-9 - M landing all the clean shots, J is very ineffective
2: 10-9 - more of the same great right hand by M at the start snaps J's head back.
3: 9-10 - decent round by M, holding the centre and landing good combos. J did land a good shot about a minute in and had a good last half minute this round the better shots came form J.
4: 10-9 - another good effort by John, but again the cleaner work is coming from M, J fought well on the back foot but M pressured well at times with good body work.
5: 10-9 - brilliant display by marquez so far, he's consistently coming out on top of all the exchanges, forcing john to back away, miss, come in and get beaten to the punch.
6: 9-10 - better round by John who timed marquez well and was able to beat him to the punch and get out of range afterwards.
7: 10-9 - good work by marquez here, he is more intelligent with his work and shows good aggression backing john up. john is not able to time marquez and it makes me think juan took round 5 off.
8: 10-9 - good work by both fighters here, but more of it again coming from marquez, his combination punching is very good and john can't handle it too well.
9: 10-9 - good exchanges in this round, John seems content with the work he's doing but he's constantly being beaten to the punch and is coming out second best in the majority of exchanges
10: 9-9 - M deducted a point for hitting marquez with a body shot on the belt and got caught by a flush combo with about 30 seconds left, that aside he controlled the round with a superior display of combo throwing and counter punching
11: 8-10 - M deducted another point for a body shot on the belt. J's defence was quite solid in this round and he landed some very good shots on a clearly frustrated M who looked quite sloppy
12: 9-10 - M starts really strong in this round but after about the minute mark John starts to out box him to a good finish for the final round.

114-112

 

I need to get this fight watched.

 

Because the only person I have ever spoke to who's seen it said it could easily be a draw.

Then again i'm sure I read an interview once with the promoter of that card saying mitchel was supposed to be the better prospect and an overweight lethargic hopkins didn't have the skills to deal with him that night.

It's so hard to find real reports because so very few people have seen it. And the further time goes past the more the words "clinton mitchell" get written down making it even harder to sift through the crap.

But generically speaking, if I see enough evidence in fight reports from a fight I can't watch then i'll believe the evidence i.e. old fights that are generally regarded as robberies. With them I obviously don't put a scorecard because I haven't watched it myself.

I tried doing digging into the debut dq loss that masquez suffered: again the same problem is that these losses just become urban myths because so few people see them and second hand accounts get repeated (like hopkins-mitchell being a very close fight)

 

Don't understand your first paragraph and it's relevance.

I include it because I chose to research it and came to that conclusion. I can and will soon watch holmes-spoon and then it will be included.

No the first time I looked into it I found a lot of stuff saying it could easily have been a draw. Speaking to a guy watching it just confirmed my research really.

I've never yet found anything conclusive about marquez-duran, infact the things i've heard seem to dispute each other. I have no idea whether it was a bogus call or not, (like when fitz suffered his dq loss to sharkey, by all accounts that was a clean knockout, hmmmmm that should be included; also dan rafael once said ortiz's two early losses were both essentially 1st round knockout victories, but I haven't dug further on that one)

Many many fighters have close, disputable fights early on, if I see them and score them i'll include them. If I have motivation to research them i'll include them. I'm surprised you're so passionate about a 4 round fight from yonks ago; I was looking into hopkins, checked this out, saw a few sources say there was nothing in it, spoke to a guy who had it on tape and he said the same. When first hand evidence aint available then second hand evidence is king (kinda like the 1 eyed man in a blind man's world).

Now I aint trying to convince anyone it could/should be a draw; this is merely what I concluded when I looked into it (as I concluded that flowers deserved to beat walker). If you wanna convince me otherwise then show me some links/reports/testimonies and i'll reconsider.