Hopkins beat Calzaghe. Dirrell beat Froch. Clottey beat Cotto

They used to give credit to fighters for making their opponent's miss and for landing punches.

 

Cotto clearly won rounds 11 and 12. Mostly everyone feels this way.

 

He did. This dude is shitfaced.

 

Calzaghe didnt land anything. Again how do you land 232 punches and the other fight doesnt have a mark on him. Except maybe some back scratches?

Bull**** cop out. You dont win fight by boxing without landing punches. Again Cotto's face vs Clottey's face at the end of the fight.

Hell even in the round where Clottey let Cotto hit him for 2 minutes against the ring post, he was hitting gloves.

One fighter was more active. Froch. One landed more. Dirrell. Whats 180 about it?

 

Clottey landed 22 punches in the 11th, while being the aggressor. How did Cotto win the round?

 

You are a simple minded person to use that logic, especially given that Cotto face was more ****ed up from the big ass gash from a headbutt than Clottey's punches and by your logic I guess Kotelnik won cause he landed more in the fight and his face was clean compared to Alexander's who had a gash from a headbutt and had a bloody nose and bruising on his face.

 

This content is protected

 

Forgetting all that.

How'd Cotto win round 11 when Clottey landed 22 punches, threw 40 and was the aggressor?

 

Stop doing the "This guy's face was better than this guy's face." It's a terrible argument. It only works in extreme cases... like when people complain about Vitali vs Lewis. His face was literal torn to pieces.

Some fighter's just cut more easily. Doesn't change the reality of how the fight turned out.

Cotto vs Clottey was close. Dirrell vs Froch was close. Hopkins vs Calzaghe was relatively close too. AK vs AD wasn't close. You can't get out-landed and get your head-rocked with clean-punches and win.

 

:blabla

 

Being marked and being unmarked in your face proves NOTHING.

It just shows you that you were less defensive than the other guy.

You telling me Clottey won against Pacquiao just because Pacquiao risked more by throwing more shots and letting Clottey hit him in the face?

 

Alexander was landing effective punches, landed far more clean punches then Froch did, for most of the early rounds. Caught Kotelnik with some nice shots later on in the fight when they traded with one another.

Again, would you say scoring the first 5 rounds, 4-1 or 5-0 Alexander is out of the question?

I claim Alexander won becuase he won the early rounds, and was active enough to get the judges attention and Kotelniks high guard d where he jut let Alexander tee off even if he wasnt landing cleanly impressed the judges.

 

The earlier rounds were competitive, but the second half was clearer.

I think Alexander won rounds 2 and 4. There is zero way he was up 5-0 unless you gave every reason to give him those rounds.

 

Alexander vs Kotelnik wasnt even close now. So Kotelnik blew Alexander out of the water then? wow. just won.

Dirrell vs froch wasnt close based on those who know how to score a fight. Clottey vs Cotto was close but clear.

And how someones face looks at the end of the fight 90% of the time tells how the fight went. Doesnt matter if a fighter doesnt cut, if you get hit in the face 200 times, you are going to show it. Hopkins didnt show it. Clottey didnt show it.

 

No he really didn't.

First 6 rounds: AK 4-2, maybe 3-3 and maybe he got the 10th. Teeing off on gloves with pitty pat hand flicks doesn't count, most of the time he wasn't even reaching the gloves.

If you think DA won tonight but think Dirrell won, you are tapped. Froch lost to me, as did Alexander.