the what fights did you watch today\scorecard thread.

Set myself today on a couple of Rodrigo Valdes fights that I wished to see. The first was:

Rodrigo Valdes v Ramon Mendez (middleweight title)

Round 1: 10-9 Mendez
Round 2: 10-7 Valdes (scores 2 knockdowns)
Round 3: 10-9 Valdes
Round 4: 10-9 Valdes
Round 5: 10-8 Valdes (scores a knockdown)
Round 6: 10-9 Valdes
Round 7: 10-9 Valdes
Round 8: Valdes drops Mendez twice before its called off

Total through 7 completed rounds: 69-61 Valdes (actual scores not known)

This title defense made little sense to me. Mendez' record had little worthwhile comp on it. As for world class opposition he had encountered. He had lost 3 times to Miguel Campanino (if you want to call him world class - he folded like a deck of cards to Pipino Cuevas in 2 rounds) and losing to Vito Antuofermo. His chief claim to fame was capturing a controversial decision over Tony Licata in his new home base of Italy and then getting his arse handed to him in the rematch in New Orleans. That beating somehow qualified him for the title shot (Licata wasn't bothered, he got the title shot at Monzon in his next bout). I will say this, however, he didn't come to be a spectator. He fought in the same Argentine clubbing style most of his countrymen were taught with. And he was plucky to the end. Simply outgunned. Funny how he had the same upper body, hair and facial structure of George Chuvalo. Just not the resilience.

Rodrigo Valdes v Max Cohen (middleweight title)

Round 1: 10-9 Valdes
Round 2: 10-9 Valdes
Round 3: 10-7 Valdes (scores 2 knockdowns)
Round 4: Cohen surrenders late in teh round under heavy fire

Scorecard through 3 completed rounds: 30-25 Valdes (scores unknown)

Again, I recall when this took place and I knew more about Cohen then I did about Mendez. And again, really surprised that he was going for the title. He enjoyed a lot of home-cooking I understand from his home base and for some reason I keep thinking there was some controversy over his win over Bouttier. But no matter, like Mendez, simply outgunned. Also, sort of comically, whereas Mendez resembled Chuvalo, I couldn't help but chuckle over the fact that when Cohen's hair got ruffled up during the course of the bout, that he resembled Larry from the 3 Stooges. Perhaps they should have played 'Pop goes the weasel' during the bout for a better response from Cohen. Sorry guys, misspent youth. My Mom always said I'd be poking someone's eye out if I watched the Stooges.

 

Johnny DuPlooy v James 'Quick' Tillis

Round 1: 10-9 DuPlooy
Round 2: 10-10 Even
Round 3: 10-9 Tillis
Round 4: 10-9 Tillis
Round 5: 10-9 Tillis
Round 6: 10-10 Even
Round 7: 10-9 DuPlooy
Round 8: 10-10 Even
Round 9: 10-9 Tillis
Round 10: DuPlooy drops and stops Tillis

Total through 9 completed rounds: 88-86 Tillis (scores not known)

Just passing the time here guys with a couple of guys known to gas out. In this instance, Tillis was looking good early pot-shotting the very green DuPlooy. But even though his face was always there for a counter, DuPlooy hung in there and actually out-stamina-ed Tillis. Catching the tiring big guy with a right hand in the final round, and despite beating the count, Tillis was wobbled enough to cause the ref to stop the fight on the followup. Nothing scintillating here but it held my interest.

 

Doug Jones v George Chuvalo (NY rounds scoring)

Round 1: Even
Round 2: Chuvalo
Round 3: Chuvalo
Round 4: Jones
Round 5: Jones
Round 6: Even
Round 7: Chuvalo
Round 8: Jones
Round 9: Jones
Round 10: Chuvalo
Round 11: Chuvalo drops and stops Jones

Total through 10 completed rounds: 4-4-2 Even (actual scores: 6-3-1 and 7-3 both for Chuvalo with a 6-3-1 for Jones)

The drawback on this fight was the film, because there was no sound. Decent film quality but no sound. I tend to like that thump of leather and the screams from the audience but even with film only I really enjoyed this duel. That first round alone set the tone for this bout. And let me tell you, both these styles just gelled beautifully. In those early rounds Chuvalo just outmuscled the smaller Jones and I thought, what was with Jones' corner having him stay inside with George, who was manhandling him. However, in the 3rd, Doug started showing his full arsenal of beautiful sharp punches from the outside. He was golden on the outside but he had a lot of warrior in him and Chuvalo was going to oblige him when they went head to head, which Doug couldn't resist. George's shots finally caught up with matters in the 11th and he wasn't going to let Doug off the hook. A damn good fight, which would have been better with sound.

 

This passage sums up my view of Jimmy Ellis. He was a sweet boxer but in his heart he was a fighter. Sometimes giving us surprising results and great action, even when it was to his detriment.

 

This content is protected

Round one 10-8 Frazier, Machen down
Round two to six, 10-9 Frazier
Round seven 10-8 Frazier, dominating
Round eight, 10-9 Machen, Frazier almost down from a punch
Round nine, 10-8 Frazier, domination.

I had it 89-79 Frazier but in reality, Machen was in the bout for most of it. A good fight.

 

Antonio, good breakdown on the fight. If you had scored it on the California scoring system used at the time, your score would have been 11-1 for Frazier through 9 completed rounds. That's just me being specific.

 

George Chuvalo v Tony Alongi (Miami 10-point must)

Round 1: 10-9 Chuvalo
Round 2: 10-10 Even
Round 3: 10-8 Chuvalo (scores a knockdown - a more liberal ref may have said 2 KD's)
Round 4: 10-9 Alongi
Round 5: 10-9 Alongi
Round 6: 10-9 Chuvalo
Round 7: 10-10 Even
Round 8: 10-10 Even
Round 9: 10-9 Chuvalo
Round 10: 9-9 Even (Chuvalo's round but the referee docked Chuvalo for an infraction which we'll just call roughhousing since I'm unsure)

Total: 97-94 Chuvalo (the original scores were announced as 99-93 Chuvalo and two scores of 95-93 for Alongi with Alongi a split winner. However, the following day the Miami Commission changed the result to a Draw)

Man, this fight had controversy all over it. I had no clue a point was deducted until reading the result on boxrec and I have no idea what the new scores were and why it was changed to a draw. Also, the report states that "the ref took the round from Chuvalo". Perhaps the reporter was talking about the NY system where docking a fighter in a rounds basis meant taking the round from the offending fighter and giving it to his opponent. But this was a 10-point system where I just deducted one point from Chuvalo. Not sure what I did was right but there were so many things about this fight that wasn't right. For instance, that 3rd round knockdown looked like a shot to the back of the head. Cy Gottfried just counted Alongi. However, a few seconds earlier I believe Alongi's knee touched down and it was clear the ropes prevented Alongi from completely going down. Another referee may have called that 2 knockdowns or may have recognized the rabbit punch as no knockdown. A lot of variables in this fight.

About the fight: A toughie to score. Alongi was taller, rangier with no punch but when he kept his distance he boxed well. He had one way of fighting. Jab, jab, throw a slapping straight right, clinch and then look up at the clock. Chuvalo too, as we all know, had one way of fighting. Belt you anywhere he could. And he did. Guaranteed Alongi's belly was on fire the next day with the thumping he took. The fight kept my interest the whole time. Just wished the film quality was better.

 

hmnn? thats interesting lol

 

I know its not, I just always convert things in my head to the scoring system used. A misspent youth.

 

No it isinteresting!

 

Thanks to @scartissue for doing the ‘metric conversion’ on the scoring, haha.

I love the scoring variances and the subtleties that used to exist from the various domains (like Argentina calling things within three rounds a draw, the 5-point must in California and the strange fractional system used in the UK that I don’t think I’ll ever quite grasp).

Sometimes in New York/New Jersey on the round system you’d get controversial verdicts because a guy scoring a knockdown or two just wins the round (with a wider margin in the supplemental points, but those only came into play on a draw) and a 5-5 fight could be fairly one-sided with a few knockdowns scattered into the mix.

Variety is the spice of life.

 

Y'know, I grew up scoring fights on the California system and always went with the flow on scoring used in all geographical locations such as the NY/NJ rounds basis, the UK, the Midwest's version of splitting 10 points, the Australian 11 point system and of course the 10 point must (I left out the South African system because I can't make heads or tails out of that). But I always remember talking to a great old west coast writer named Bill O'Neill and we talked at length on various subjects within the sport and when it came to scoring we discussed the old California scoring versus the 10 point must and he really enlightened me when he said, "The California system is exactly like the 10-point must, only less math." And he was absolutely right if you ever make a comparison on scores.

 

Tell me more about this Midwest system (when, what states and how it worked) and whatever you can about South African (I’m pretty sure the fights I’ve watched from there were either title fights or ended in KOs so the scoring wasn’t needed) — again, when and how it worked as best you can explain it.

Those are new to me.

 

Pat, the Midwest system is just something I coined to streamline this as I have no idea what it was actually called but it appeared to be used in Illinois and Missouri. Thus, let's call it the Midwest scoring system. Here is an example of how the scoring went:

Sandy Saddler v Charley Riley (Midwest's 10 point system which is dividing the 10 points - 6-4 for the winner of a round, 5-5 for an Even)

Round 1: 6-4 Riley
Round 2: 6-4 Riley
Round 3: 6-4 Saddler
Round 4: 5-5 Even
Round 5: 6-4 Saddler
Round 6: 6-4 Riley
Round 7: 6-4 Saddler
Round 8: 6-4 Saddler
Round 9: 6-4 Saddler
Round 10: 6-4 Saddler

Total: 53-47 Saddler

Official scores were 53-47 and 56-44, both for Saddler and 50-50 for a majority decision win for Saddler. Riley started so fast keeping Saddler's back to the ropes and pounding away. But that took a lot of energy and once Saddler moved the fight to the middle of the ring he took over. Even his infighting improved once he was utilizing those uppercuts that Riley couldn't match. Charley kept it competitive the whole way, however, and it was an enjoyable fight.

As for the South African scoring system, to this day I don't know how they come up with their scores. For example, The Pierre Fourie v Mike Quarry fight ended with scores of 67-66, 66-65 and 67-65 all for Fourie. Huh?? Also, I once read in some writeup of one of the Galindez-Fourie fights that the 15th round was scored 7-5 for Galindez. Again, no idea. @Jel and I once had a discussion on South African scoring and neither of us could put any logic to it.

 

Manny Pacquiao W12 Juan Manuel Marquez (2)

Getting further into this rivalry, trying to erase the shame of never having viewed these fights until just now. What can I say, it's modern(ish) boxing, so I lumped it in with all the rest of the stuff that happened after about 1998 and ignored it.

Anyhoo, the trend I'm seeing emerge here after the first two is that Marquez is much the better technician and has thus far won the solid majority of rounds, but Manny has truly equalizing power. He'll lose two rounds while being comprehensively outboxed by the Mexican, only to dump him once or twice to confuse the issue and make the scorecards close. Some rounds can be difficult to score, but the leap-frogging with points due to knockdowns is a major factor. It feels like Marquez is getting the shitty end of the stick here but points are points. It feels like an injustice somehow to reward one fighter lavishly for what amounts to seconds of success over much longer periods of very solid performance from the other fighter. But that's what makes this an interesting blend of styles.

Pac is much more intent on boxing early this time, or trying to box, but he's not the stylist Marquez is and falls behind initially. The third sees him flash his legit power and Marquez sees his early advantage erased just like that, and from then on, it's a tug of war.

1. Marquez
2. Marquez
3. Pac (10-8)
4. Pac
5. Marquez
6. Marquez
7. Pac
8. Marquez
9. Pac
10. Pac
11. Marquez
12. Marquez

114-113 Marquez. Not a robbery by any stretch, but given the players involved, something like this will always be hotly debated. I now have this series tied 1-1.