As I said I could easily see a 2 point swing by giving one of the closer Pedroza rounds, which I believe you did, to Rocky. I think it was the 4th, Im searching frantically for my card but I think I chucked it. And by scoring one of the drawn rounds to him. Im pretty sure I gave the 6th (like you) and one of the earlier rounds drawn. But I truly feel the commentators and crowd were ignoring good clean work from Pedroza and instead remarking on the aggressiveness of Rocky. Eusebio wasnt scoring the heavier punches but he was scoring more of them and fair bit to the body aswell. I didnt see it as a shutout earlier on but I did feel Rocky was firmly ahead after 6. I rewatched it just to be sure and I cant see how Rocky deserved a drawn round in the 13th. For reference the pro-Lockridge crowd were scoring in favour of Rocky all night and even clear Pedroza rounds he barely squeaked past in the percentages. For the 13th 46% scored it for Pedroza and only 42% for Rocky, which given the pattern of the night that generally meant a Pedroza round. Neither fighter did much that was noteworthy. Rocky landed a couple of hard punches later in the round but Pedroza did most of the work, scoring a fair bit to body and getting some light but clean headshots in...moreso then Rocky. You can see that a 5 point win can tighten up very quickly when you look at it from another perspective but in turn a close points verdict can edge out to fairly comfortable when one person sees a couple of rounds a bit differently. Thats why I really like this thread. P.S I scored the last round even actually. If anyone deserved it though it would have been Rocky but I just thought a lot of his shots were made ineffective by Pedroza's defence..a lot were sliding off his shoulder or just grazing him. Rocky put in the bigger effort but I did feel Eusebio gave a great on aswell and again probably outlanded Rocky..making it a difficult round to score when I watched it.
Fair enough WAR. It's been a while since I watched it so I may throw it on later on and give some of the more contentious rounds a look. The one thing I tend to remember from the fight quite vividly though was that Pedroza was doing quite a bit of slapping with the body punches, landing them with the 'whipping' hand/wrist motion and I think I wasn't really giving those blows full merit even though they were landing. That might have been a key difference of interpretation which may have given me a slightly different perspective to yours as far as the scoring goes. I actually thought Pedroza gave much better effort in the rematch, but again, I even had that fight close... Have you seen/scored the rematch? interested in your thoughts.
Never scored the rematch mate..in fact I saw it before their first encounter and have not seen it since. I cant even tell you who I thought won because Im pretty I was that at that age where Tito and Tyson is all I could digest. Also about the slapping punches..that a very good point, though Pedroza was landing more it wasnt of the same quality of Rocky. That being said I still find that Pedroza scores with those shots, not Calzaghe scoring with the finger part of the glove score but he does often turn his hand and land with the knuckle part. Probably not always, I dont look that hard actually but I did notice he had quite an unorthodox way of punching that still really seemed to work.
Continuing the Eubankian flavour of the thread, I watched and scored Eubank's second fight with Nigel Benn today. Blatant robbery imo. Eubank's timing was terribly poor and he struggled to hit Benn with a clean shot all night. Benn's timing wasn't immaculate either, but he was slightly more accurate and active for most rounds which was giving him the edge. Nigel Benn was quite good on the defensive end as well, but Eubank's punches were nearly all telegraphed and wide of the mark without the need for Benn to do much in the way of dodging and blocking. I can possibly see how some would score it close if anything resembling rabbit punches in the clinches weren't counted, but even then, Benn still did the better work on the outside. My card: Nigel Benn vs. Chris Eubank II: 116-111 Benn Eubank: 5,11 and 12. Benn: 1,2,3,47,8,9 and 10. Round 6 even ( 9-9 ).
Just watched the 1st MAB/EM fight again, close indeed, just a few rounds that could have gone either way, anyway here's how i saw it: ..............MAB / EM 1/..............10/9 2/..............10/9 3/..............10/9......Great body shots 4/..............10/10.....possible 9/10 for Eric 5/...............9/10......Great round 6/...............9/10 7/...............9/10 8/..............10/10 9/..............10/9.......JUST 10/..............9/10 11/..............9/10 12/..............10/8......KD was harsh on Eric + he fired right back so poss 10/9 It ended up with 115/114 for MAB for me but just tweek the rounds 4/8/9 & it's Eric's win, the Glen McCrory commentary & scoring was the as per usual CRAP, he had MAB pissing it by 4 clear rounds I was shocked at how frail Eric looked, he was like a walking corpse, must have been a nightmare for him to hit the weight. I'll watch the 2nd one this afternoon:smoke
Have got a few more fights to write up first, but i thought Eubank lost this as well.I only had Benn by a point, but when the fight was finished that felt surprisingly close to me, getting a draw was definitely a best case scenario for Eubank.Main difference in our cards is i had it about even after six, then Benn did his 7,8,9,10 sweep, which was pretty clear. Benn looked like a poor man's chang in this fight imo epsecially defensively, though as you say eubank was hardly laying a lot of precise shots on him.I'd say this fight was where the weight making really started to impact on Eubank's performances.His next few are awful to score because his offensive timing is usually completly out, but his defence generally remains strong.
Rounds 1 and 6 were probably the rounds most gave to Eubank which gave them close cards, but yeah, it's pretty hard to mount a justification for Eubank taking this one.
Tonight, IB is sinking his teeth into Moorer-Holyfield I. [yt]iwIMTNSLC3A[/yt] [yt]QhEZvDJlo54[/yt] Slow going, doing this at work in between...well, work. A third through, here we are: 1. Holyfield - aggressive throughout, made more of an effort to fight a full three-minute round, and did a nice job in varying his attack by alternating leadoff punches in his flurries (most effective when started with the jab), Moorer - nullified much of Holyfield's offense, but was largely ineffective with his own. Too cautious from outside (thus getting beaten to the punch) and too uncertain on the inside, spending time (and energy) grabbing for traction with his hands instead of letting them go (leading to a stark contrast between his connects and Holyfield's authoritative ones). Most of his best punches in this round are looping shots thrown seemingly in desperation and landing thanks more to Holyfield walking into them than marksmanship. The pre-Compubox punchstats provided are of dubious merit - wasn't counting myself, but it's hard to swallow Moorer at 39% unless a good number of glove touches are being scored. Moorer landing quantitatively more (but less clean/effective) punches than Holyfield is one thing - but a ten percent gap seems untoward to justify. The jabbing contest was largely a stalemate, thanks in large part to their opposing stances causing each to be hittable and discouragable with this punch. It reached a point where one trying to be first with his jab would quickly recoil when the other so much as feinted a counter jab of his own. This round was decided on power punching, which was decidedly in favor of Holyfield in terms of efficacy if not accuracy as-tabulated. 1st Round: Holyfield 10-9 Aggregate: Holyfield 10-9 2. Holyfield - of course has the knockdown, but pretty clearly lost 2:30 leading up to it. He was always in a good position to leverage his punching power, as evidenced by the KD itself, but the price of this was his overall movement being very slow and telegraphed. The dynamic offensive pressure of the previous outing gave way to a far uglier method of wading in with his forearms extended to deflect counter fire, yet he was still getting hit fairly regularly. Moorer - worked his jab very well and this time won that contest. He won the majority of the round by circling at a good range that allowed him to lean into his shots and retract safely; and by being first more often than not. He was not horribly hurt by the knockdown, though it was a clear and legitimate one. Throughout the last minute his mobility had waned and Holyfield, his feet well set, caught him square in the quicksand. Creditably, Moorer arose and finished off the round well, showing no sign of giving any mental ground and still firmly believing in the work he'd done up until that moment. After a good deal of soul-searching, I decided to go with my gut right or wrong and score it 10-10. After a good deal less researching (unearthing this recent thread right here on ESB, including a mention of this very round: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=188063&page=4) I found that the official judges had done the same. 2nd Round: Even 10-10 Aggregate: Holyfield 20-19 3. Holyfield - this time was able to pull off the heist with which I didn't let him get away in the 2nd. This was (right-) armed robbery. The same span of time that Moorer had then so convincingly dominated with the initiative and accurate punching was here a relative void, with neither really asserting their will much, taking the initiative, or landing much of noteworthy cleanliness or accuracy. UNTIL...Holyfield begins pumping his right hand in the final moments, and building on its success by throwing it in even greater number and with greater force - thankfully facilitating an otherwise challenging split. Moorer - continued to show a good jab and boxed fairly well throughout, but was simply outpunched down the stretch. 3rd Round: Holyfield 10-9 Aggregate: Holyfield 30-28 4. Holyfield - had an eye-catching, judge-wooing flurry in the early goings, pinning Moorer on the ropes with a hard volley and then using his physicality to move the champion around to potentially make further impression on those charged with scoring. These moments would have been more than enough to steal a round like the 3rd (as his succession of right hands in actuality did); however the 4th was not the 3rd... Moorer - donned his poncho and weathered the tempest, then wrung himself out and went to work. His tenacity and consistency (the gap in his ability to find a target with Evander's now beginning to appear in line with the published stats...) were enough to make one forget who was pinned on the ropes and thrown like a rag doll. For all but those early moments, you'd have to have preferred with conviction to have been Moorer in this round. 4th Round: Moorer 10-9 Aggregate: Holyfield 39-38
Eubank vs Lindell Holmes Eubank:4,5,8,9,11,12 Holmes:1,2,3 round 6,10 even and round 7 missing commentators had Eubank winning comfortably. Not sure if this was is really considered as controversial as a lot of the others, but i remembered it as a close fight so decided to score it. Holmes in his prime was a fine, underrated fighter and viscous puncher imo.He never really got any breaks and generally flew under the radar, eventualy picking up a title at supermiddle past his prime.A truly embarassing loss bodyshot\exhaustion to mediocre Van Horn, who he didn't seem to have taken at all seriously obviously didn't help him. Here he was looking to redeem himself and gave a damn fine performance, looking much better than he had in his last few title defences.He was a good boxer-puncher, who at his best reminded me somewhat of a more stocky,flatfooted, bigger punching McGirt.Solid technical skills, decent finesse and doubled all his punches up realy well, especially a terrific double hook. He started extremely well, beating Euban at his own sneaky countering game for the first 3 rounds.After 6 i thought he looked slighty the better of two, though Eubank was starting to look sharp. Second half of the fight, his age began to show, as he stopped fighting full rounds, allowing Eubank to seize the intiative and dictate things.Chris seemed to have figured out his style by now as well, scoring nicely with some big counters that had Holmes looking wobbly a few times. A near sweep of the last six gave Eubank a clear win for me, though if you gave Holmes the even rounds then missing round becomes crucial in salvaging a draw.Despite that, he did continue to fight well in spurts and kept things competitive.
Eubank vs ray Close (1) Eubank:1,2,3,7,8,9,10,11(10-8 ) Close:4,5,6 12 commentators had Eubank winning by about 4 to 5 points and were very surprised by the draw.A lot of peopel semed to think Eubank needed the knockdown to salvage a draw. entertaining fight.Close was a decent, if mostly nondescript fighter.tidy, with a good jab and decent fundamentals, but more of a stiff workhorse/labourer than any kind of gifted talent. Story of the fight was close's workrate and steadyness against Eubank's laziness, much greater physical ability and finesse. he did switch of and let himself get outworked for a 3 round period, which made things even at the halfway stage, but for the most part i thought Eubank was as sharp as he needed to be, countered well and controlled things.A superb short inside uppercut almost got him a stoppage in the 11th, with close doing well to come back and take the 12th on sheer effort/workrate. Bad decision imo.
Eubank vs Benn rematch Eubank:1,3,5,6,12 Benn:4,7,8,9,10,11 round 2 even Benn had a point deducted for low blows. Can't remember if the commentators really gave a clear final opinion here.General consensus was for Benn. A big let down after the classic first fight.Benn fought well, and in a far more controlled, defensively responsible manner than the initial encounter.Eubank was moving well and competent defensively, but couldn't get his punches off at all and the low workrate, poor timing etc that had been hinted at in various earlier fights was now and would continue to be a bigger liability. I had Eubank in front through 6, but most of the rounds were inconclusive and tough to score;neither fighter getting anythig consistent going offensively.I couldn't argue with anyone having Benn in front by the same margin at this point. After that Benn started to get to grips with Eubank's D more efectively and Chris did nothing more offensively.A fairly clear trun of rounds for Benn with even a late championship rounds rally by Eubank resulting in a lot more missing than effective punches. Despite the closeness of my card in terms of rounds, i felt Benn was clearly the better fighter and the only one who won any rounds very clearly.Eubank getting a draw was really a best case scenario for him here, and Benn can legitimately feel ripped off. That said, it's tough to believe this fight wasn't fixed as a draw was the only result that stopped King getting a piece of either fighter.
Eubank vs Rocchigiani Eubank:1,2,4,5,6,7,9,10 Rocchigiani:3,8,11,12 commentators had Rocchigiani by a point or two.A lot of people thought Eubank won widely and turned in a masterclass...neither of which take i'd agree with. Very competitive, often tough to score fight that could vary quite a bit depending on what you go for.Rocky's stiffer jabs and accurate straight shots/combo's thrown in spurts, or Eubank controlling the tempo with a lot of weaker jabs and loads of combo's and bodywork. For once Eubank was actually the busier, steadier fighter for long periods here.Punch volume and accuracy looked much better than againt Benn. Rocky is another very solid underrated fighter and looked about two weightclasses bigger than Eubank.He fought like a giant Winky Wright, with more emphasis on letting shots go in spurts rather than steady jabbing, though in other fights he did that too. Eubank controlled the pace for much of the fight with his movement and an unchraracteristc very busy measuring stick jab that kept Rocky off-balance.Most of his powershots came in the form of combinations to the body and uppercuts through the guard. Rocky landed some nice shots when he opened up, but did so infrequently and was made to miss as often as he was picking shots off on the gloves/arms.In a way it was a lot like the Thornton fight, only closer and with the german relying on height/reach, rather than pressure to go with the high guard.
Eubank vs Close rematch Eubank:1,4,5,6,8,10,11,12 Close:2,3,7,9 Commentators had Eubank winning a very close fight i think..or maybe a draw, general opinion was another robbery. Most of the time i don't pay much attention to commentary and have forgotten a lot of their opinions already.Usually i'll score fights with the sound off, but this was the first time i had watched a lot of these fights in a long time, and i was intersted to hear an alternate take as the fights were taking place. Now this is probably the one where i disagreed the most with them.They saw an epic battle and tremendous effort by Close, akin to the Watson rematch...i saw a crap fight between one fighter(close) who had altered his style to a very specific, mostly conservative jab and move based gameplan, and the other guy who was mostly out of sorts, taking about 8 rounds to get his timing down. Close might have deserved to win for effort alone, andwith Eubank looking lethargic, it may have caught the eye of many at ringside.Unfortunately for him, he was still being slightly outjabbed in many rounds, and other than the odd right hand he was struggling to break Eubank's D. Eubank's low workrate and bad timing kept a lot of rounds tight, though his rights to the body and semi-effective jab were usually shading them for me. Close was reeling around hurt again late, and lost the last few rounds which were decisive for me.It would have served EUbank right in a way if he had lost this fight, but i really don't think it was a genuine robbery.Close simply got nowhere near enough punches through. Eubank vs Mauricio Amaral Eubank:2,3,4,5,8,10,11,12 Amaral:6,7,9 Round one even Commentators had Eubank winning by two or three points, pulling away in the late rounds if i remember correctly. this fight was much thre same as the Clos rematch for me.Awful stuff that made me question why i had decided to go back and score all Eubank's controversial fights...has any champion had more incidentally?. Amaral outworked Eubank for most of the fight even though he was fighting in spurts, relying on heavy telegraphed combinations that were mostly taken on the gloves/arms/shoulders or made to miss entirely. Eubank once again took an age to let his hands go, mostly sticking to the jab and lead right to the body.He did enough to shade a lot of the rounds in the first half imo, but i wouldn't argue too much with anyone thinking the opposite. Just when it seemed Amaral was going to step it up enough to win the fight circa 7,8,9 and had the commentators worried...Eubank found a high enough workrate to clearly take the remaining rounds, always being the more accurate of the two. Again, to be honest i wouldn't have moaned had Eubank's bare minimum effort lost him this fight, especially if you place a lot of emphasis on workrate.For me though, Eubank generally still landed the cleaner punches and deserved it round by round.His D was as usual pretty impressive.
Eubank vs Dan Schommer Eubank:3,7,10 Schommer:4,5,6,8,9,11 rounds 1,3,12 even Coemmentators had Eubank losing by about 2 to 3 points or so. This fight basiclaly followed the same pattern for Eubank as his last few controversial ones, only this time his Defence wasn't as tight and he was doing enough to lose most of the rounds by competitive but clear margins.Another awful fight. Schommer's cagey style frustrated him as well, but really he was one of the worst fighters Eubank defended against and this can only be called an inept effort by Chris. Clear robbery, if not a massive one on the cards.Me scoring three even rounds is probably too generous to Eubank if anything.Just not a lot happened in a lot of rounds, and it's tough to maintain concentration watching such crap.
Eubank vs Steve Collins eubank:2,4,6,7,10(10-8 ),11,12 Collins:3,5,8,9 Round one even Commentators had Eubank losing by a point or two.They gave Collins a ten-eight for his flash bodyshot knockdown of a squared up Eubank which i did not.Tough to say if it was a slip or not, but it was certainly not worthy of a ten eight round imo. Good entertaining fight.Collins fought well in his usual style and Eubank, though slightly past his best, looked a helluva lot sharper than he had in a lot of his fights since Benn 2. Lots of very tough, hard to score rounds in what was imo a very even fight up until Eubank knocked Collins down heavily with a sneaky straight right.Collins was generally busier and deceptively accurate at times, but made to miss a lot and countered well by Eubank. After the knockdown Eubank stayed firmly in command with those last four points over 3 rounds being perhaps the only very clear ones of the fight. Not sure i would say this was a blatant robbery, but Eubank definitely has a strong case for winning it and i felt he clearly did so.I'd compare it to Conteh getting the decision in the first Saad fight.
