Thought Eastman was rather unlucky to not get this. Outworked him and scored effectively to the body which helped him outlast AA to a degree. However there is a possibility I'm being a biased brit I suppose. What does the classic think?
Eastman threw more I agree. Arbaham threw the meaningful, effective and precise shots, had the better defence and controlled the fight. I thought this was a clear win.
Good point. But I dont think he threw anywhere near enough of those 'effective and precise' shots to warrent the victory. Matter of taste I suppose. If it was in the UK or the USA I've no doubt the judges would've scored for Eastman. Rather like the recent Kotelnik/Alexander fight. (Though that was an outrageouss robbery imo)
I never get the ppeople who prefer ineffective aggression and workrate over effective punching, defense and ring generalship.
Well yeah. Alexander vs Kotelnik was the worst robbery I've seen this year. Harold Ledermans card was a disgrace. I just felt AA was a little inactive. Theres which style of fighting you prefer (Eastman/AA) and theres sheer bloody corruption and/or not understanding how to score a fight properly. (Kotelnik/Alexander)
Well, yes AA was inactive but that´s his style. You have to factor in defence and ring generalship though. Boxing is not only about throwing punches. If one fighter throws 30 punches but lands only three due to the defence of his opponent and his opponent throws and lands only three but harder punches, it´s a no-brainer for me who get´s the round.
I think we need a 3rd opinion. A 4th or 5th would help as well. Where is everyone? Oh its friday night and I'm posting on esb. How sad.:-(
