Atlas: "The only controversy is the judge that scored the fight for Malinaggi"

Yes.

Most people get swayed by the commentators and the fake punch-stat numbers, both of which were heavily hyping Broner. They actually had the number of punches landed about even going into round 6. That's ridiculously, absurdly, GTFOOH, wrong.

I think Broner won, by 1 point, or it was a tie. 117-111 in just criminal. (literally)

 

score card please

 

Stop trollin'

Broner washed him past round 4, get over it.

 

I don't often agree with Teddy, but I think he was spot on last night (and I also agreed with his take on Golovkin-Macklin).

Paulie may have performed better than a lot of us expected, but I still felt he lost clearly. Dude barely landed anything of significance the entire fight.

It's funny how Paulie initially applauded the decision, and then soon after went on a diatribe claiming corruption. Dude had the look of a beaten fighter in those last rounds. I think deep down he knows he truly lost and is trying to parlay himself back into position for another payday by stirring up controversy.

 

Only paulie knows what "power shots" landed on him. Of course you idiots think every shot broner threw was a "power shot" w/e the **** that means

115-113 malignaggi

 

Atlas on the payroll too?

Seems with Floyd retiring in a few years the boxing establishment needs to prop up a new guy with a mixture of soft scheduling (or so they thought) and fixed judging.

Paulie won a clear 7-5.

 

Well then I guess we might as well never even bother watching the fights, because only Paulie knows what hit him. Never mind that his head snapped back 200 times during the fight. Never mind that the punch stats have Broner outlanding him 212-92 in power shots. Never mind that its clear to anyone who watched the fight that those stats are accurate. No, only Paulie knows what really landed.

 

My biggest problem with Adrien Broner's performance: He was inactive for 30-40 seconds at a clip for 2 periods in each round. He didn't throw for 2/3 of each round. If you score a round for its entirety, you have to say that the person who was active for 66% should get the nod in many cases.

If Malignaggi wasn't gettign to broner, he would have let his hands go. Staying shelled is not ring generalship. Again, say what you will about malignaggi's strength, but broner let 10-15 punches at times touch his body (whether blocked, shoulder rolled or not) without a single return in almost every round.

He should have been busier. His shots were crisper, he just didnt throw enough for me to say that he dethroned a champion. Yeah his accuracy was up, but when you throw so few, it is easy to have a higher accuracy. Count the punches he actually threw, it is way less than compubox numbers indicate. Paulie lands in excess of a hundred more shots (wimpy though the may be) more than broner.

It really unfortunately comes down to how you score fights, are you scoring for the MOST punches landed? or the more "Crowd friendly" ones?
Also, there is the subject of the knee to the groin, that should have been an automatic point deduction which would have resulted in a tie, that's excluding the repeated behind the back punch which could have cost an additional point.

I want to see broner do great things, but winning in this way is not a credit to him or his fans. Broner did not win this fight IMO at BEST he edged a tie which should see paulie still crowned.

 

This is a good post, but the difference was power. You could hear and feel Broner's punches ringside.

Paulie had a lot of punches blocked, and some got through. Had he not started moving backwards, he wouldn't have given the impression that he was feeling Broner's power.

Broner landed the more visible shots that everyone saw. Paulie didn't land those kinds of shots. Paulie is cagey and he has a good chin and speed, but he got hit with the harder punches.

Imo Paulie clearly lost. Anytime you judge pitty pat punches while the other guy lands hard shots though fewer, harder shots always prevails. Dlh beat Shane in their second fight imo, but ringside observers said that you felt the impact of Shane's punches.

 

Agree 100% with Teddy.

 

Seriously if you thought Paulie won that then I'm glad you're not a professional judge...Broner didn't put on a clinic or totally dominate him but he clearly won...Paulie even acknowledged his failing effort when Broner was announced the winner...

 

Broner's "effective" punching is being exaggerated in that fight. At no point did he wobble or stun Paulie. If he had I would be inclined to agree. But fact is he threw too few and showed no slips, rolls, lateral movement in his defensive qualities, he just took the shots, however weak they may be and tried to close Paulie down.
But the biggie here is that when he did close the distance on Paulie, to win the round by throwing far less punches, well then surely he has to hurt or damage Paulie if he's to win by "effective" over "volume". Punches "sounding harder from ringside" just doesn't cut it!
Paulie was relatively unmarked at the end of the fight. For me Broner was the stronger, more accurate fighter but the boy got outworked and flattered to deceive with his head shaking and smirking but never landed enough hurtful punches to negate Paulie's lighter but busier punching and better skills displayed. for me he threw it away by not managing to close the ring effectively and knock Paulie out of his gameplan.
Notwithstanding he should also certainly have had points deducted for his kick in the dude's swingers.
AB - Don't believe the Hype - :-(

 

Just by watching and enjoying the fight, I thought Broner took it 7-5. Now, if I intentionally sit down with pen and paper I think I pay a lot closer attention and may actually score the fight much different. Just by watching, I had it close.