I personally use even rounds. I don't see anything wrong with them when a round is down to that wire. If a round is even and you find yourself following a mantra that you have to pick a winner of that round, well then you have just penalized the other fighter on the way you flipped your coin.
I don’t know exactly, scar. Years ago I woulda told ya I knew one when I saw one. Lately, I almost think being a member of this forum amidst a bunch of posters whom I genuinely respect has planted some indecision somewhere in my head. Matter of fact...I had lurked the classic section for a little while prior to signing up. But I was finally compelled to make an account as I sat, drinking whiskey by myself, rewatching Ward-Kovalev I with one eye open, in the early hours of that Sunday morning. That’s a fight I felt was pretty close, but still a clear Kovalev win. As the champion, he dictated the pace for much of the fight, landed more shots and certainly the harder shots...and let’s not forget the knockdown. Even on the rewatch I again struggled to find enough rounds to give to Ward. So I signed up and was preparing to blast anyone who disagreed. I was taken aback by the many varied scorecards that ended up posted here. But okay...I guess I need to remember that people maybe value some aspect of the other fighter’s repertoire that I don’t put a premium on. Plus I was hammered and the opinions in the general forum are a terrible metric to go by anyway. But an even more confusing example might be my own scorecards that, as a younger fan 10-15 years ago, I was so sure were the RIGHT scores. DLH-Whitaker for example, was one I had seen and scored at least a half a dozen times. I was certain Pea did enough each time. Upon rewatch a year or so ago I was shocked to add up my cards to a narrow win for Oscar. Same thing happened when I had Tito winning a close one over DLH when these guys did the FOTW a month or two ago. Ditto for Leonard-Hagler. And it’s not even like I find myself scoring for the boxer each time or the aggressor each time. I don’t know, man. It’s just been my recent experience, especially w these FOTW threads...that maybe I need to reevaluate what I look for in my scoring. Is this something you guys have experienced? For the record, I like the way you worded your OP scar. But even then...you’re gonna have disagreement on the varying degrees of a robbery.
Good post! One of the best this year IMO! I think sometimes we get caught up in the moment and excitement of a fight. I think we can get swept away by commentators (even though everyone says they don’t put stock into it), as they tell us what they think we should be seeing. An example is I score JCC vs Whitaker completely different the 2 times one with audio one with it muted. I know we don’t like to think we are influenced by commentary but I think many times it plants a seed in our minds and we are. I can’t believe how many fights I screamed robbery over (SRL-Hagler as an example) that upon a rewatch with fresh eyes outside of the moment where I am blown away at how close it is or that my scorecard aligns much differently than years ago. I love The FOTW threads, and hate when people post a card from years ago....I want to know what they think today removed from that moment.
Here is one way to look at it. Pretend that you had rendered the decision in question, and that you are dragged before a commission to explain yourself. Would you feel confident defending it? Would you be able to mount any sort of convincing defense of it? Would you just want the earth to swallow you up? That might be a good guide to whether it can justifiably be called a robbery.
Hostile, I say don't second-guess yourself. You've been a fight fan long enough to know what your looking for in a fight. Criteria may vary slightly but we all know what we're looking for. I score on clean punching. I found one of the hardest fights I scored was the Benitez-Cervantes fight. Man, I had to stay riveted for the full 15 rounds because of slight ebbs and flows, compounded by what you look for such as rapid fire taps with nothing on them compared to fewer shots with more oomph behind it. Philly mentioned turning off the sound to avoid a whining commentator who may be biased, but that is not something I do only because I would be doing without that sound of leather thumping which also makes a fight for me. I say get a mindset, don't be influenced by a screaming crowd who cheer for one fighter even though he just missed, don't listen to a droning commentator whom you probably know far more than, and be confident in your decision...without the booze of course.
The hierarchy for me, with examples: A Fair decision ( e.g. AJ v Parker ) A gift ( eg. Ward got a gift over Kovalev in first fight ) A robbery ( Lennox was robbed in Holy (1) ) Shoot that judge!!! (Pac v Bradley (1) )
Thanks for the kind words, Philly. I appreciate it...and I can definitely relate. It’s wild how our preferences change over time as to what we look for. Same exact thing happened to me upon revisiting Leonard-Hagler. I know for a fact that I’m occasionally influenced by the play by play. Usually when I’m tired after workin all day and I’m half zoned out. Or even if it’s not a particularly good fight. And for all the times I’ve heard someone recommend watching w the sound off...I’ve never actually pulled the trigger and watched a fight like that. I can imagine, like you said, having a drastically different card. I’ll try to contribute to those FOTW threads. You and kev have done a nice job with them. A big reason why I haven’t is this little mini-identity crisis w regard to scoring fights haha. But it’s still really cool to see everyone’s breakdowns and to see I’m not the only one who’s cards are a little different this time around. Hahahah. That was the twilight of my drinking days! Boy, it got rough. I haven’t had a drop in quite some time now. Maybe that’s the variable in my previously so self-assured scoring! Hah. Yeah, I definitely get what you’re saying about how each of us looks for something in particular. For me, a big aspect has always been ring generalship. Sweet Pea is a personal favorite of mine because of the way he dictates the tempo nearly every second of every round. I can even appreciate, say...a 40+ Hopkins, dull as he often was, insofar as he’s just so goddamn crafty. He’s not gonna fight your fight. And you’re absolutely right, scar. You really need to be dialed in to score accurately...especially when it’s two guys at the highest level. The margins are just so thin! Anyway, thanks to the both of you for the wise words. It’s good to get a different opinion so I really do appreciate your insight.
Interesting point about ring generalship that @Unnecessarily Hostile brings up. For me, that is all about which fighter is controlling the tempo and dictating terms, which leads to a stronger impression that they are winning the fight. It's an intangible in a way that it doesn't automatically match punch output or punch stats. Without getting into a tangent of Leonard-Hagler opinions, I think it may be why so many people are split on that fight. Whether you feel he won or lost, many people acknowledge Leonard dictated the terms of the fight in those twelve rounds, whether he landed the higher volume of punches per round or not (irrespective of punch stats). That leads to the impression that he is winning the fight, which is bound to sway judges' opinions. This is not a pro or anti-Leonard comment, by the way, just an indication of how the judges and fans could have seen different outcomes and been so convinced that their view was right. Of course, you can say 'ring generalship be damned, who was landing the punches?' but if it was just punch output or punches landed then we'd rely on the compubox numbers alone and score accordingly. Even then, punches landed and clean punches landed is still, to some degree, interpretative so not as exact a science as people who say they only score on that method would like it to be. I try to look at all those facets when scoring but I don't think it's easy to be 100% consistent in that methodology. I'm a fan after all, not someone being paid to judge the fight, so I will admit that I could have got it wrong. If you're being as objective and dispassionate towards both fighters as possible then you can probably trust your judgement. But I don't watch boxing out of dispassion so I find it easier to score fights when I don't feel invested in them! If I just want to watch a great fight, I might score in my head and try and keep a tally but not on paper and then it comes down to overall impression of who I thought won. The FOTW threads have been good because I've been consciously marking my card and re-watching fights so my opinion about robberies and the number of them has changed. The only truly bad decisions in my view I've seen since these FOTW threads started were Pacquiao-Marquez 3 and Gomez-Lockridge and only the Gomez win do I consider worthy of the term "robbery". And guess what? Other posters who I don't doubt are scoring those fights fairly have them much closer! I still hold my view that they were bad decisions but have to accept that there's still a level of subjectivity to it.
Bingo! You nailed it. Not all 10-9 rounds are the same. This distorts the perception. Using even rounds would help alot.