Boxing is scored round by round. Most people seem to agree that Catterall dominated 1-8 and Taylor 9 - 12. If look at the early rounds given to Taylor, Round 2 and Round 7 by all three judges, and Round 3 by two judges. These were all pretty scrappy and close rounds. I'd probably given them to Catterall, but it's not like they were clear one way or the other. Give Taylor those three plus the last four and he wins. Probably the wrong result, but not a scandal...
Horrible post, but laughed most at "plus the last four" as if that's some small matter. Catterall outlanded Taylor in the last two rounds by double. I'm not sure about the previous two.
Few stats: - Taylor landed a higher % of punches thrown and power punches thrown - 405 of the punches Catterall threw didn't land so whilst he was very busy - hence giving off the impression he was in control of the fight - a huge amount of his punches missed. I scored round 2 even and gave Taylor rounds 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 (-1) and 12. Lots of the American media/boxing folk scored it for Taylor. This content is protected
How do you even win a round when your hit 9 times to 3. I think that was the 12th round punch stats. You,ve hit your opponent three times asmany. Hes only hit you three times the whole round. You basically cant win...do you need to hit him 4 times as many to win the round. Its not like taylor was hurting him with each of the three landed punches either. I think the 11th round was 8 punches to 3 for cattarell. The 12th was 9 punches to 3. If your jack cattarell...you,ve got to be left wondering what you can do to win. Now people are coming out because their steuggling to make a claim of taylor winning many of the first 8 so the last 4 goes to taylor to allow him to win. The problem with that is....he was outlanded 9 to 3 and 8 to 3 in the last 2 rounds. Again people have claimed cattarell was spoiling...now your saying cattarell probably doesnt get points he maybe should have got...because he threw lots of punches that missed. Which is it he was spoiling or he was throwing too many? Taylor lost the fight regardless of the mental mathematics needed to try to justify the win
I didn't say he threw too many. Just stating, as per the punch stats, that a huge amount of his punches didn't land. He also spoiled a lot. Throwing a combo of ineffective punches then holding.
there is a fighter that just got his arse handed to him and he made a killing off throwing ineffective punches then pushing or holding for years its regarded as great and fun to watch the goal posts seem to be moving
The problem is that you ignorantly believe that the boxer who throws the most punches in a round is the winner. Did you even watch the fight or are you just plucking dodgy punch stats from Sky? Edit: typo
We all know that a round isnt always scored to the guy that lands the most punches. But i dont think anyone that isnt deluded knows you probably cant win a round landing 3 punches to 9. Unless uncle ian john lewis etc is involved that is anyway. We,re countering with did you even watch the fight...because with what i,ve seen the vast majority of people agree with me in that catterall won the fight...handily as well.
It doesn't matter how many punches didn't land. The aim of the game is to hit the opponent and not get hit. Catterall managed to outland Taylor by double, or thereabouts. If a boxer lands 12 punches out of 12 thrown over the course of the bout, they have a 100% success rate. If a boxer lands 100 out of 1000 thrown, then they have a 10% success rate. Your interpretation of the data is misguided, that's for sure. You've been completely obtuse since the bout ended, because you're a Taylor fanboy. As per bbjc and the stats, Taylor could only be favoured despite being statistically compromised had he landed a haymaker and jolted Catterall. He did nothing of the sort. Neither boxer was hurt in the last 2 rounds, so it makes sense to separate them by who landed significantly more punches. How else do you separate them? Are you going to invent a phantom haymaker that Taylor landed? He was flailing around helplessly. He knew he had been schooled.
I though Catterall won by 5 points on the night although some of the rounds were closer on watching again. Nobody can convince me that Catterall never won that fight. Taylor looked out of sorts from start to finish and the result reminded me more of a Lee McGregor v Farooq decision where most thought Farooq won and very surprised that McGregor got the decision. It was never a Ricky Burns v Ray Beltran decision where Burns was battered for 9 rounds with a broken jaw, rightly skipping away from conflict all night but still being badly beaten up most rounds and somehow the fight was a draw with one judge giving it to Burns by THREE rounds.
Don’t mention other fights. According to Adam Smith who’s turned into a whopper again this is the only bad result in history.
You started off well when saying, "We all know that a round isn't always scored to the guy that lands the most punches" before inserting the word "but" and then proceeding to completely contradict yourself by adding, "you probably cant win a round landing 3 punches to 9." Just to clarify, you absolutely can win a round in those circumstances. You're punch stats are bogus. I've just re-watched the final round and Taylor landed more than 3 punches and Catterall landed less than 9. The whole fight has been uploaded onto YouTube so you can watch it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.