Why is Calz vs B-Hop considered "close"?

Boxing isn't like Soccer for example, where the criteria for winning is agree upon by all. No one can argue with the results in soccer because of that. In boxing, everyone's criteria may be different from that of the judges. So the official scores may not always be well received by the public. Because of that, people can only interpret their own scoring of a fight. It would be difficult to interpret a judges score because we don't know what criteria they used for that night.

 

:yep

 

Didn't lederman give Pacman 7 rounds in his first fight with Marquez? Needless to say he's made mistakes in the past. Who cares if they were Americans. That only makes a difference if you also knew for a fact they were biased towards American fighters. I scored the fight for Joe C. by the way but after watching it again it did seem like Hopkins landed the harder punches.

 

This content is protected

Hopkins probably lost with his crap antics, trying to get Calzaghe DQ'd on fouls in his hometown. rofl at Cortez. "My Paycheck!!"

This content is protected

 

read the thread, noobie

 

Yes points are awarded by round, but a statistic like "rounds won" is utterly meaningless. Why don't they announce the results of fights by saying "Calzaghe won 7 rounds to 5"? Hopkins clearly won over half of the rounds against Pascal the first time, but it was still a "close fight" and "controversial" because of the point differentials resulting from the knockdowns. Marquez won over half of the rounds against Pacquiao in their first fight, but it was still "close" and "controversial" because he was knocked down multiple times. This isn't rocket science.

 

I won't be bullied.

 

ah, another troll

 

Who said it was close BASED on the official scorecards?

 

Damn. Exposed.

 

nah, dude, dont take it personal. there is a lot of trolls on here. they seem to think they are really bugging the shite of people, but, they really arent. been here a while:good