Each round of the fight is debatable. However, Steve Cunningham is the only one to be blamed for the result of the fight because Glazkov did his very best. Steve didn't. If he were in better physical shape and came with a better plan, he could simply win the fight. What he did early in the fight - he threw some punches at Glazkov's high guard defence and delivered with low percentage. However, this made him think that he already won the fight and he could relax, when for real he needed to win rounds with more conviction. I don't recall him delivering any solid punches at Glazkov, when Csar definetely had his moments of success. I had it a draw, which could simply go either way. I am dissapointed in Steve only, because Slava showed his best and he will never be anything better than he was in that night.
Sh*t opinion. Glazkov gave away too many early rounds. He had a good finish in the last couple rounds, but he really didnt do enough.
20-15-12 - meaning people are fairly evenly divided as to who they believe won...so yeah, pretty clearly reflects no robbery.
I concur. Whenever fight is so closely debated, it can't be a robbery. Now, Scott...he woulda got 2 voted again him. Vytosky and Damien.
IMO numbers don't always tell the story. There was one round that Glazkov landed less punches than Cunningham but I gave the round to Glazkov anyway because his punches may have been fewer but they were more effective. Therein lies the problem with subjective judging. You may go for the greater number of punches landed while somebody goes for the harder punches landed. I don't see this particular fight as a travesty. Many of the rounds are sort of debatable. I ended up scoring it 6 rounds to both fighters for a draw.