The definitive Devon Alexander vs Andriy Kotelnik Scorecard

116 to 112 for Alexander was a good score

 

Which is incorrect.

I do look at body punches and I don't think Alexander landed 202. He was struggling all night to get past the high guard and his body work wasn't effective. It's the same issue as I've always had with Alexander. On the heavy bag, he will look like the greatest fighter since Duran but he hasn't got the intelligence, accuracy or defence to be a great fighter. He's just a good, sharp puncher and that really is about it.

 

That statement alone speaks volumes about the state of your eyes son.

As for your ridiculous posturing in this thread and your claim that your scoring is somehow definitive, maybe a mod could rename you MichiganKeyboardWarrior.

Kotelnik won by at least two rounds although a case could be made for a draw. Alexander won this fight on paper only.

 

And I'm Mike Tyson.

In all seriousness, I don't disagree with your arguments in this thread too much but the way you put them across, it leaves something to be desired. Throwing around insults whilst trying to make a point makes you look really rather silly and nor does it help people take your argument seriously.

 

Compubox is total bullcrap. You know I like Dirrell and I also like Devon if that matters, I have no reason to talk outta my ass. Please sit down and watch the fight once only and very carefully watching how many punches go through Kotelnik's guard and to his body, write down your own numbers each round and do it over again with Kotelnik. There will be a very significant difference. Frankly, if you somehow find 200 landed Alexander punches (you won't), you'll find 320 for Kotelnik. Trust your own eye! I was called dumb when I came up with my Holyfield-Valuev score (118-110) and vehemently argued that in 10 rounds Holyfield did better based on clean effective punching compared to Valuev's ineffective volume, and if it was 12, I would've scored it 120-108 despite a rather close looking fight. I've been sticking to my scoring criteria for many many years now and it's working damn good I can proudly say. This fight was not close based on a quality round by round score and I only very rarely go overboard like this on the forum, almost did the same in a lot closer fight when I had Andre Dirrell winning over Carl Froch. My man Martinez can't argue 'bout being robbed vs. Paul Williams because it was close even on a round by round basis, this fight however was simply not. I'm still supportive of Devon, but he ****ing lost and was outboxed by a better fighter by quite a margin, and when I see Lederman scoring it 117-111 and Compubox having 200 punches landed on Kotelnik, I know they turned into a weapon of influence. I rather trust my own eyes thank you, and you should trust your own.

 

Those are the punches which should be scored and I just don't think there was 202 of them. I'd say a lot less than that. It doesn't suprise me that those numbers were wrong, considering how badly the judges, Lederman and the other commentators got it. There was no impartiality so I don't think it's completely unfair to suggest the Compubox numbers were spiked to even it up a bit. Looking at the fight, the Compubox numbers seem way off.

Kotelnik is definitely a good fighter but beatable. I think Bradley and Ortiz would beat him more decisively than Alexander but less so than Khan, who has a stylistic edge. Alexander also has a big edge stylistically though, which is why the result was so unexpected. Good fighter but beatable. I hope he gets a rematch.

 

When over 20 boxing related sources who covered the fight WORLDWIDE had Alexander winning it was no robbery. You have to take the championship from the champ and leave no doubt in their. If their are close rounds then the champ should get the benefit of the doubt because he's the champion. Alexander, threw more than 400 shots and his power connect shots were more telling.

 

That's not the fight what I saw, that's what the clearly biased (I'd say: by higher powers, he was waaay off) Harold Lederman said over and over and over again. Kotelnik was able to score "single punches" yeah... every 10 seconds, crisp jabs, clean right hands plus uppercuts, body shots etc., sometimes almost at will, whereas Alexander just very occasionally found target with single punches through his very ineffective flurries. Which one is sweet science? Clean effective punching is Harold's gospel yet he chose to support the complete opposite, ineffective volume, based on his own (and correct) critera, Kotelnik would've been clearly ahead, that's how the rounds played out. I can objectively say ignoring the biased commentary, that Kotelnik landed about 40-50% more punches. Seriously! And the difference was visible broken down to 3 minute periouds as well and that is what we score. I won't argue with your card, but you seem to repeat Harold's argument which is simply not based on the fight I saw. Maybe watching without the sound will help, please do that.