Serious question- did anyone score the fight on Sat for the guy they wasn't rooting for...

Sure. I have a slight preference for Ward as a fighter because of his sublime skill-set, not that Kovalev's isn't good. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of Ward fans scoring it for Kovalev and vice versa, but to a lesser extent based on the data we have which suggests roughly 75% felt that Kovalev won. I've flip-flopped over these fighters over the past several years though, without having a profound interest in either.

But when I'm scoring, I'm not trying to give rounds to the fighter I prefer. I'm judging the fight as though both men have nothing and they need to earn something.

Now, whether it's truly possible to quash the field of extra influence that fighter preference bias manifests is another question, but perhaps it can be suppressed to the extent that the effects are negligible -- then again, many boxing decisions are the result of extremely negligible calls.

Then, there's also the question of how to judge a fight with regard to what you score. Different people prefer different things, even if they are neutral for the fight regarding the personnel. What's the right way to judge? Should we tailor ourselves to be a certain type of judge, or should we try to simply find a balance between all paradigms and styles? This judging stuff is tricky business. You get fights where it can be legitimately scored 116-112 either way (or further).

 

Rooting for Kovalev had Ward win.

 

Something I've tried to do with some fights in the past is to deliberately judge it in a way that is atypical from my nature. So, not to judge unfairly, but to try and judge honestly but from a different perspective - a sort of completely dispassionate and reductionistic approach as to try and further understand the essence of judging a fight. Through this I came to understand that the same fight can be won in different ways through different profiles... and I don't just mean in the basic sense of understanding it as a possibility and "it could have gone either way" yadda yadda, but really believing it and being able to judge it in actuality. I came to realise that I probably had a disproportionate bias for the pure boxer type, who tends to produce efficient offence and connects at a high rate and with accuracy, producing what is often described as the "cleaner/crisper" work.

About 3 years ago, instead of scoring this fight twice for Kovalev 114-113, I might have scored it for Ward 114-113. A small difference, but if I was actually a judge it would be a key difference.

I will probably continue to change, though I'm happier with my balance these days than a few years back.

 

Seen lots of comments where people said they wanted Ward to win - but scored it to Kovalev.

 

I'm always amazed how judges are said to be often swayed by the crowd as it never makes a blind bit of difference to how I see things,case in point I'm sure I heard Eddie Hearn say some judges or judge had Brook up in the GGG fight when only a moron could think that,Brook did better than most in winning one round off GGG in round two but really however the crowd react to one guy or the other when they're at ringside judging from what they see I fail to see how the crowd can swerve some judges.
To answer the question though it's time neutral judges were brought in like they use neutral umpires have in cricket cause with the best of intentions one can be looking for something that's not there and vice versa,the fight seemed to be over in the blink of an eye to me.

 

Is this a confession?

 

I like both guys but prefer Ward based on style. I had Ward winning. That said, I do believe there are more close rounds that could swing more in Kovalev's favor. They had a ton of close rounds that boiled down to "who's style do you like more?", and Kovalev's style is generally more popular.

 

I've been in Wards corner all the way back since the
Super 6 .

He won me over when he manhandled Kessler and exposed him to the world .

I love how he neutralizes his opponents and picks em apart .

Kovalev won me over against Cleverly.

I love how he completely annihilates his opponents and looks so full of joy while doing it .

I was not rooting for either man and was somewhat bothered that someone's 0 was about to go .

But oh well , this is boxing and every fighter is going to lose eventually is what I told myself .

That fight is over now..

And I have no problem admitting that the wrong man won .

 

I'm a Ward fan, (and a Kovalev fan but whatever), and I felt at best he fought his way to a draw. I didn't feel he won the fight, but I haven't had the time to really rewatch and score round by round. I was too busy enjoying the action overall as it was truly a great match up. But my "feeling" having watched the action was the fight was a draw, champion keeps his belts, and let's see a rematch.

I really do wish these types of highly competitive championship bouts would go 15 rounds as well.

I see no issue with saying Ward won by a point, or Kovalev won by a point or two. All are reasonable scores, and why boxing is great IMO. Just makes the rematch that more interesting as these men were clearly very evenly matched in that ring.

 

Fights are scored who lands and who doesnt with effect punching ,its complicated only if you let it be . Styles ,personalies,nationalities ,etc etc are thrown out the window ,those who score fights without jargon are the credible posters those who don't ? Not so much.

Pro judges will ALWAYS have some sort of bias ,thats how USUALLY they get picked.

I do agree close indesisive rnds go to the Champion !

 

If it was so simple, everyone would come to a similar score for the recent mega-fight. If two fighters score with a roughly equal amount of leather, some are inclined to give it to the hunter and aggressor (Kovalev) and some are inclined to give it to the fighter they feel was more measured/efficient/clean (Ward). Through those even rounds, the biases come through to give the nod one way or the other.