The 117 - 111 card...

No. He won, don't me wrong. But not by that sort of margin.

 

I can only assume the way these decisions go in any country that it's politically motivated.

 

no fighter won by 6 rounds...unless the IBF are told to judge on quality not quantity

 

good post

 

[yt]f46GwvQHmOs[/yt]

 

[yt]m8_E_y-EUkA[/yt]

 

:yep

 

Well ok Westy, but the only way Kell could have lost it due to lack of "work rate" is if the judges were either corrupt or incompetant. I really cant see how - in a fair world - that anyone could confuse the sloppy bull-rushes of Porter with the much cleaner work of Brook.

A win for Porter would have been a travesty - Quantity must never beat Quality cleaner boxing IMO.
The rounds were "close", insofar as Porter tried hard and showed great guts but Porter never asserted any dominance IMO.

What you say definitely applied in Sturm v Soliman, but not htis time I feel.

 

A win for Porter would not have been a travesty at all and that card of 9-3 in rounds was ridiculous, even sky man Nick Halling admitted that. I bet they go for Malignaggi first defence or someone soft like that. Just fight Khan, that would be cracking.

 

I agree he was fortunate because he wasn't doing enough in a lot of rounds ,landing the cleaner punches yes, but not enough of them.
His inside work is non existant. Porter is just a tough ,strong kid, a poor champion imo.

 

Porter is a poor boxer but has a decent inside game, rounds 1-6 he was landing decent shots. He is a poor champion and I'm glad Kel won but it wasn't a 9-3 fight. Against better opponents which there will be at this weight he will need to drastically improve his inside game and produce more work in the early rounds

 

Most of the rounds were close. Could have the round highlights nicked them for Kell?

 

He is unique, his style is very crude.

I mean Floyd or Pac don't fight that way but have pretty decent inside games.