Am I the only one here who agrees with 117-111?

Paulie won 4 to 5 rounds at most. That last round was a hard one to score, but up to that point I had Broner winning pretty comfortably.

It was an interesting fight to try and score, Paulie let his fists go a lot more than Adrien but AB landed the more powerful shots all night. Much better fight than I expected.

 

after *****'s and *******s, there are Broner***uals

 

Seems like a lot of people had it about 7-5 Broner....so isn't 7-5 Paulie therefore just as bad as 9-3 Broner?

 

This

 

You can argue that the stats are wrong. They're certainly not foolproof.

 

Just try watching Angulo v Kirkland round 1. Count the punches, compare them to Compubox, then NEVER, EVER try to use them in an argument.

 

It was. Why doya think so many are saying that?

 

YES...


I think Broner clearly won the fight. I don't agree with 9-3 but it is no more ridiculous to me than 7-5 Paulie.

 

Assuming 115-113 Broner is a fair score....

117-111 is two points off 115-113 (i.e. you score 2 more close rounds to Broner). 115-113 Paulie is 2 points off 115-113 Broner (i.e. you score 2 more close rounds to Paulie).

What's the difference?

 

People have no idea how to score fights that involve a fighter they absolutely despise, for whatever reason.

 

I had Broner by 2.....Impressive win and huge accomplishment. Paulie fought well but his lack of power is a big Achilles heel for the Magic Man. Did Broner get the KO..No....did he dominate...No...but he did move up 2 weight classes and step up against his most skilled opposition in his young career. I thought Paulie would give Broner some problems based on style and him moving up...and it played out the way I figured...Close fight going to Broner.

 

Argument can be made for 116-112, 117-111 is pushing it tho

 

People who think 9-3 Broner is a disgrace....how many rounds do you think Paulie CLEARLY won? Unless you can find 4 clear Paulie rounds it's not really a disgrace...