for me it has to be mosley v cotto. very few rounds were easy to score. both were landing high quality, clean punches every time i watch it i think cotto wins based on workrate but most rounds could be scored either way
I had Cotto clear winner 115-113 with maybe one of the rounds being so even I would've given it a 10-10 but instead I gave it to Mosley
Not for me, but en masse I would say it could be Hopkins-Calzaghe. Some have it 9-3 Calzaghe (laughable), other people I know had Hopkins by 3 or 4 points. That fight was a 21st century Hagler-Leonard, it completely splits people on account of their philosophies of what boxing and the scoring of boxing should be.
Minter vs Antuofermo I. This fight was very closely contested and had some of the hardest rounds to score for me anyway!
They are both laughable...I had Hop's by 1, but can't see how either guy could win by more than 2 unless you are an unabashed hugger of either guy????
I didn't think Cotto-Mosley was that hard to score. Now Mosley-DLH 2, that's another story. There were a lot of close rounds. Whitaker-DLH was another tough fight to score. That was worse, actually.
oscar outlanded mosley by 100 punches, outlanded him in jabs 3 to 1 ratio, and outlanded him in POWER SHOTS. no way mosley won. oscar won 6 of the first 7 rounds of that fight. I agree, VERY hard to score. My scores usually range from 113-113 to 114-112 oscar. I never had a card with whitaker winning. But if someone has whitaker by 1 i wont complain.
I don't buy that Compubox ****. That's the same system that claims that Felix Trinidad landed 160+ punches on De La Hoya (and 260+ for DLH in that bout) and had PBF outlanding DLH around 220 to 120. 340 punches landed in that fight? Mosley-DLH was a close fight with close rounds in them. There's a reason why only 8 of the 28 reporters polled ringside had it for DLH, and why there was such a wide variation in scorecards from not only the press, but fans as well. The fight wasn't easy to score.