Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano & Jessie Vargas vs. Liam Mark Smith RBR.

I think people forget that each individual round is scored individually, on the same merits as every other.

Rounds won through Power Punches/Aggression count just for the same as a round won by landing more and making your opponent miss.

Serrano's rounds, in the middle of the fight, were more 'Impressive' in that she won them through visibly hurting Taylor.....
But 1-3 and 7-10, it was clear that Taylor was far more accurate and was also visibly making Serrano miss.

Besides the 2 to 3 rounds in the Middle of the fight where Serrano nearly stopped Taylor, and should have stopped Taylor, she was comfortably out boxed in every other round, besides the 10th which was closer, but Taylor again was far more accurate still.
Serrano 'Dominantly' won her 2/3 rounds, and Taylor 'Clearly' won her 6/7 rounds.

It's pretty clear Taylor is the better boxer, arguably athlete too after Serrano faded so badly....
If Taylor didn't have this tendency, every fight, to want to trade with her opponent because it is so easy for her, this could be a UD with her winning every round in a rematch.

 

I would agree if one fighter didn’t clearly beat the **** out of the other, respectfully. Yes in an amateur setting where you count punches, sure it was “close”, in a professional setting not as much. It was pretty obvious who was in charge, who did more damage, and who was “winning” vs who was “surviving”. Taylor ran/held/spoiled while getting busted up the entire fight. She literally never made even a dent in Serrano and was never for one second in control of that fight. I give her credit for showing heart, I give her credit for fighting through being hurt multiple times, but she didn’t win that fight.

 

I don’t agree with your assessment. Serrano won the 10th, matter of fact Taylor was damn near out at the end of the 10th, again. Not sure how you would score that to Taylor. You’ve basically just “given” Taylor every round she wasn’t beaten damn near to death in.

 

You were totally out of line with many of your insults, if you weren't a mod you'd have been banned for this behaviour.

 

Serge, it happens all the time.

 

A job with the BBC or Sky Sports awaits.

Because there's a type of boxing fan who would much rather stubbornly pretend that his prediction actually came to fruition than face the alternative, i.e. the bout of cognitive dissonance, piercing insecurity and self-laceration which would accompany an acknowledgement that his almighty analysis was imperceptive to some consequential extent. 'Isn't there a third way?', I hear you say, 'To try to understand where he miscalculated and move on with this new knowledge under his belt?' Well, you'd think so, but not for some.

Fritz probably lost a few grand betting on a stoppage for the PR, besides. He was certainly at least considering those 3/1 odds.

Who trusts men they don't personally know and implicitly trust (which should be a very small number) with their niece?

But, gun to my head, I'd trust Trump over the guy who showered with his own daughter and openly/unmistakeably felt up adolescents at White House functions.

Big paydays for female beltholders will not become the norm, nor should they. Hearn generally only uses the women because they're cheap. In this case, he was able to successfully market a matchup to two ethnic groups in a none more woke city with deep historical ties to those particular ethnic groups. Contrived media push notwithstanding, very few people outside of the Irish and PR contingents in NYC really cared about it. A surprising number of the supposedly hardened fight degenerates here are drawn to hype and razzle-dazzle like flies to ****, so that explains the long-ass RBR thread we have here.

Chris is alright, just dislikes being wrong more than the next Joe. Being haughtily dismissed (at best) or cussed out for having the nerve to even post an equally authoritarive but contrasting opinion of how a fight went (let alone quote and challenge his, civilly or otherwise) was a BF24 rite of passage at one point. You've got to give him credit for relative mellowing.

 

All three judges gave Taylor the 10th. Even the judge who had Serrano winning the fight. Serrano dug herself a big hole then proceeded to punch herself out. None of the main media gave Serrano the win.

 

I can't tell if some people are truly that ignorant to see both sides and be empathetic or if they're just deliberately being assholes.

 

I'm being extra nasty by calling out your worse behaviours for what they are? I've had arguments with you before, and pardon me, but you often make it nasty when it doesn't go your way. It's only fair that people get to say the same in return. You're an incredible hypocrite, you just love playing the victim when it suits you. Pathetic stuff.
I didn't betray you, I have no loyalty to you and never did, this is a boxing forum. So melodramatic...

 

Even doing it temporarily just to flex your power is totally a tyrant move. Stalin didn't keep a lot of his political prisoners in the gulags permanently, he often brought them back subdued and compliant, just how he liked it (not saying you're that bad, but it's not exactly fair that you demand respect while giving none in return).
Btw I'm done now, this conversation is no longer worth it to me, much as I imagine it is for you.

 

No it wasn't. You're just being sexist.

 

As you and the others were dogpiling CST I think it's fair if I jump in here. How are you going to call him "melodramatic" and then compare him to Stalin lol. It just looks like you only have an issue with his behavior when he's going against a fighter you're rooting for. From my experience CST only gets personal and nasty when someone goes at him first. I've argued with his scorecards for years and it never got personal. I used to **** on EE fighters that CST followed and he never got nasty, he respected that we had different opinions.

Regarding his scorecards, CST's scorecards when he doesn't pick a winner is usually spot on, but he shows bias when he picks a fighter, but who doesn't? He also backs it up with a breakdown of the round. From an outside perspective I get why Katie fans would get annoyed by CST's scorecard, but I also think you guys are being way too harsh on him.

 

I don't care if that's how I'm perceived, whatever 'sexist' even means anymore (if, indeed, it ever meant anything). The women in my life like me well enough, at least.

I just think the level was pretty low once you take out all the screaming casuals and look at it for what it is. They have pluck and all, never have denied that women can be brave/stoic, but womens' boxing is a lousy watch. I only suffer through it because 1. opportunity to profit nicely off a couple touchscreen taps, 2. I'm stealing the telecasts to begin with (funnily enough, the 'rise' of womens' boxing is one of the two chief reasons I'm stealing them).

 

You can defend him all you want but he went down in my estimation when he called me an old codger.In my day you respected your elders even if you disagree with them.Resorting to petty name calling is pathetic

 

I don't remember you when I used to post here back in the day so I don't know the history behind you two and what kind of poster you are. Not saying what he did was right though he may have just been busting balls, but also do you get why he may have been annoyed when he was getting attacked from every angle? You guys were dogpiling him.