My Thoughts on Chambers vs. Adamek

just one question??why the **** is helenius there??

 

I was rather disappointed with the fight, I was expecting more clean exchanges.

 

A few realities despite corruption-

Chisora beat Helenius for every round, Chambers beat Adamek.


1. W. Klitschko IBF, WBO, WBA, IBO
2. V. Klitschko WBC
3. D. Haye
4. A. Povetkin
5. D. Chisora
6. E. Chambers
7. R. Helenius
8. T. Adamek
9. C. Arreola
10. T. Fury

 

Chisora is way too high.

 

Adamek ahead of Chambers?

 

I thought Chambers won 115-113

 

I knew someone around here had some brains.:!:

 

Thats bc Adamek didn't look good with the extra weight. Had he been 217lbs, more of his combo's would have landed & even a bigger margin of victory.

 

Chambers outclassed Adamek in every way possible, one-handed.

 

Your list is quite good but I do feel you haven't taken in account that Helenius lost to Chisora.
So atleast they should switch places.



Haye is somewhat unproven in the Heavyweights and I think at this moment he shouldn't be in the top 5 or 10. If he however proves himself worthy and wins impressivly I would move him up to top 5.

 

That could have been it, although he did just enough he looked quite sluggish.

 

I agree with some of the OP's points but another poster wrote it good: neither impressed me really.

Adamek was predictable and won (in my eyes) mostly by way of scoring more. His connect percentage must have been horrendous but Chambers failed go grab the win, which was there for him. He looked more skilled but instead tried some inadvisable showboating as if he was dominating. The fight was very close. People need to stop casually throwing out "outclassing" claims. Outclassing is not winning closely, it is not winning clearly, it is winning WIDELY. Not only on the scorecards, because one fighter can be closely better in just about every round (Vitali-Chisora was very competitive in most rounds, yet I scored it wide for Vitali. Just because of that it wasn't an outclassing), but clearly a step ahead in the actual fight too.

I must say a was a bit surprised going in here and finding people crying robbery. I watched the fight with foreign language and therefore had a better chance not to be influenced. Of course, there was still the pro-Adamek crowd... Posters talk about extreme scoring and extreme corruption - somtimes I wonder about some of the extreme views that are in action on this forum. Poles claiming Adamek won very clearly, Americans and Brits (what's this thing between Brits and Poles?) claiming the complete opposite. I can't help think it's pretty funny, and at the same time odd.

Chambers shells up and finds a way of not pressing the gas pedal when he should be, just like against Povetkin (Wlad was simply too good, even there he was passive and shelled up too much). Shelling up has a tendency, right or wrong, to not sit well with the judges.

Adamek looks very unimpressive but is better than he looks. Good quick (for the division) jab and sticks to the fundamentels. But Really, the fact that Adamek and Chambers are considered being around 5-7 in this division makes me think it's weak.

I'd love to see Haye-Adamek. Haye would smash him, I feel. Haye-Chambers could be trickier to predict because of Chamber's shell defense.