Before you try to score fights and declare winners, robberies and shlt...

Your dumb ass should learn how to score fights objectively without regard to how much you personally like or hate one of the fighters.


Thank you.


:smoke

 

Says the black man who always pulls for and defends the black fighters. We know your angle. atsch

 

Yeah, but I know when one of them lose. You don't see me running around claiming that Zab won against Garcia, or that Bradley actually beat Pac.


I did have Chambers beating Adamek though.

 

I didn't think Paulie won the fight, which is what I think you are trying to say that a lot of us here think, but that Tom Schreck scorecard was ridiculous.

 

Close fight, could have gone either way.

117-111 was out of bounds

 

you aint a boxing fan....you a fan groupie boy!! your midget is so flat footed that you just cant throw a watermelon from hill and hit him

 

I had it 8-4 or 7-5.


I don't think that 9-3 Broner card is any more ridiculous than 7-5 Paulie.


In my opinion...
Paulie CLEARLY won 3 rounds.
Broner CLEARLT won 6 rounds.

The others were close, but I think Adrien clipped two of them.

 

Same ***** that gave Ruiz the nod over Golota 114-111. Golota beat Ruiz but guess what? Ruiz was a Don King fighter at the time. Schreck was paid off for sure.

 

I had it 7-5 Broner. Either way, awesome fight, just Broner was totally classless.

 

I'm not a big or even moderate Broner fan. I think he's too ridiculous outside the ring, and I don't really like his skillset inside of it. He is not accurate and elusive enough for me.


I'm not a big Paulie fan either. But I know who won that flucking fight though. :good

 

Speaking of Schreck, he scored Pac/Barrera 115-112 while the other two judges scored it 118-109. Pac whooped the **** out of Barrera.

 

there is no way broner landed more shots that paulie. broner landed the much harder shots but was comfortably outlanded. it was a close fight that i wouldnt argue against no matter who took it. the point that is being overlooked is that it was against a washed up paulie malignaggi... thats right, paulie frickin malignaggi.

 

Oh that was HIM??? Damn. You might be on to something.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that Broner was overly impressive tonight. I think he exposed himself as a boring, powerless, sort of fast WW.


Yeah, that was Paulie. Good point. And I agree...


But I don't think Broner lost by any means.

 

i thought there was a possibility that Broner gets exposed on the front foot... it happened. i've been saying for a long time now, that this is a huge weakness for him. he's not as good as a lot of you claimed.

if you're not good going on the back foot yourself, then take centre ring and circle. don't walk Broner down because that's where he's at his best.

regarding the scores, it was close. the best i have for Paulie is a draw. the best i can do for Broner, is by two. so i do think the right guy got the decision. but Broner was pretty much exposed.