Lederman says:Adamek beat Cunningham in rematch

you score a fight on clean punching. only if it was tied in clean punching do you go to criteria 2: EFFECTIVE aggression if it's still tied you go to criteria 3: Ring Generalship and if by some fluke it's still tied you go to criteria 4: defense.

in this fight there wasn't one round where you even had to go to criteria: 2 but if you did for 90% of the fight Adameks aggression was INEFFECTIVE and worked against him meaning that Cunningham wins in Ring generalship as well and defense? do we even need to talk about who was better defensively? c'mon man go count the clean punches in each round and tell me Cunningham won any less than 8, you'd have to be blind.

 

yeah nothing wrong with his vision, ability to not doze off during a fight, ability to remember who just won the round he just watched 3 minutes earlier.
i doubt if he remembers which which guy is the black guy and which one is the white one. he needs to call it day, him and Merchant graduated high school in the 1800s

This content is protected

 

Lederman is a ****ing joke.

 

Rather Lederman. There was a poll on one of polish boxing sites and majority (70%) saw Cunningham victory.

 

Looks like a child molester

 

ooooooooooohhhhhhhhwherethe****amI???

 

This content is protected

i totally agree on who he seem to give the very close or even round to...and it should be the standard on how a round is judged.

 

Adamek did land 50% more power shots.

I mean ****ing shock of the century, guy spends 12 rounds jabbing and running away and loses the decision despite landing more jabs. Gee THAT never happened before. Maybe next time he should fight like he wants to hurt someone. It's boxing, not tag.

 

:think No.

 

I don't know what or how these hbo guys judged it but I favor Adamek because he was the aggressor walked brought the fight to Cunningham.Steve's a good backpeddler i'll give him that though.It was a close fight but I think Adamek did enough to win.Another thing I forgot to mention is you can't rely on the jab alone to win you the whole fight.Difference between him & Marquez is JMM is willing to go toe2toe without clinching & throws multiple power combinations not just jab & run.Stop whining & making more excuses for the runner.It was in the U.S. for crying out loud,whine for every loss close fight.

 

Poppycock. I'm more of an Adamek fan than a Cunningham fan, but Cunningham controlled the action. Adamek had very few real moments of effectiveness, while Cunningham fought pretty much the entire fight on his terms. Keeping Adamek at jabs length, etc.

Aggression is only measured by the effectiveness in which it is employed. Due to the fact that he was outlanded, and consistently so makes me think his agression wasn't so effective. He was outperformed.

Not the worst decision ever, but certainly not the right one. Being that it is the 2nd one in recent times tends to make me believe that Adamek is riding on greased rails.

To me the real question is whether ANYONE would have been hemming and hawing if Cunningham won. I doubt it.

 

:rofl

 

Another **** scorecard from Lederman. Nothing new.

 

I dont always agree with lederman, he overrewards aggression but he's usually in the ballpark. In this case it was a close fight and while USS had better moments than adamek they weren't sustained like they should have been and I really didnt have a problem with it going either way....draw would have probably felt right...

 

I guess not everyone went with the same thinking and thought Cunningham won.