Against The Grain - Your Score Cards

If you don't score the "knock-down" in round 12 of their first fight, I don't have MAB beating Morales in any of their fights.
I don't think Oscar beat Tito.

 

I actually went with what was at the time of the bouts sort of a general consensus the MAB-EM fights. First one i had Barrera, then Morales, then Barrera, i know its not a general consensus anymore, but at the time they were largely viewed that way.

I had Pintor-Zarate very close first time round, but forgot who i had ahead (was sure it was Pintor though), watched it again and had Zarate winning.

Spinks beat Taylor

 

I had Oscar ahead by 2 against Tito, im a big Tito fan and the biggest Oscar sceptic on ESB.

 

I should probably point out that Tito and Morales are my two favourite fighters ever - so bias probably comes into my scoring of their fights.
I found a lot of the Barrera-Morales rounds tough to score but I scored the second fight 115-113 for Eric and I had their third fight dead level.
It's tough to justify Tito beating Oscar but through my Trinidad-tinted glasses, I can just about manage it! I also had Marquez taking 9 rounds against MAB, while I gather most people have it much closer.

 

I can't remember exactly, but I believe I had Ray Mercer edging Lennox Lewis. I'd really need to watch it again before making a definitive stance on it though.

 

I didn't see Hagler-Duran as close at all point wise. Duran was competitive in most rounds, but it was hard to see any rounds that he won clearly outside his good spell in 11-13.

 

Most people agree that Hagler-Duran wasn't really as close as the judges had it. I had it 10-4-1 for Hagler.

Duran also got too many rounds against Benitez.

 

Fights where Ive gone against conventional wisdom:

Had Eddie Davis beating Michael Spinks by a point.

Had Winky Wright drawing with Bernard Hopkins.

Had DLH beating Floyd Mayweather by a point.

I had Rodrigo Valdez beating Carlos Monzon in their second fight by a point (**** will I catch heat for that!).

Had Virgil Hill drawing with Thomas Hearns.

Had Roberto Duran drawing with Iran Barkley.

Had all three Barrera-Morales fights scored even.

Had Julio Cesar Chavez vs. Frankie Randall I scored even (though I rewatched it about 3 or 4 months ago and I had Randall by a point this time).

Had Fernando Vargas vs. Winky Wright scored a draw.

Had Stevie Johnston beating Jose Luis Castillo both times, 116-111 for the first fight and 115-114 the second time round.

Had Rosendo Alvarez winning the first Ricardo Lopez fight and drawing the second fight.

I had Ismael Laguna beating Ken Buchanan in their first fight by 3 points.

I had the Reggie Johnson vs. James Toney fight even.

I had Jose Luis Ramirez beating Alexis Arguello by 2 points.

I had Eusebio Pedroza drawing the first Rocky Lockridge fight and the Juan Laporte fight.

I had Betulio Gonzalez beating Masao Ohba by a point.


Yeah, I can't score....

 

Hey mate, some quite surprising scorecards there I must say (not that I'd ever kick up a stink over such things, judging fights is the most subjective thing in the world I have learned).

Two comments though:

- I am glad to see someone with your vast knowledge believes Oscar beat Floyd. I'm not sure I did, but the way that fight has been retrospectively turned into some sort of Mayweather masterpiece is a ****ing joke. Mayweather was mediocre. He faced a well past-prime Oscar and still struggled woefully with Oscar's jab and strength until the Olden Boy tired and lost his grip on the contest. It was one of the most languid, lethargic, uninspiring performances of PBF's career, and had he lost he could have had no complaints.

- Do you have a sort of philosophy that you adhere to when scoring fights? For instance, I believe in even scoring unless there has been a clear winner. I do not understand nor believe in nor even respect the attitude that seems to be prevalent in boxing that a 10-10 is an undesirable thing, and leads people to the arbitrary gifting of rounds to one fighter or the other simply to avoid an even round. If I genuinely believe neither man has gained a clear edge over the other, I will score it even without a second thought, and this can lead to 3,4,5 per fight (I had 5 in Pac-JMM I), but I believe it is correct - and this is what often leads to my scores being different from the majority/consensus. Also, what I look for in a fight is clean, clear, effective, significant punching, and not mere workrate. As a fan of defensive boxing, I refuse to give people rounds based on who was walking forward more or who was throwing more, if they weren't actually scoring.

Those are my scoring criteria and I think that's why I sometimes have scores that are different to the norm, but I believe it is the right true way so I will continue to do so.

I think it would be interesting to see if your strange scores are because of a similar philosophy/set of personal criteria.

Care to elaborate mate? :good

 

By the way, the last time I scored Hearns-Leonard I, I had Leonard just one point behind going into the 14:th. With that standing he would most probably have won even if the fight hadn't been stopped.

 

Cheers Dina. Always baffled me how some guys have this fight so wide for Mayweather and consider it a great performance and a schooling. I must have been watching another fight. Floyd was dismal, I agree. Threw punches one at a time and made Oscar look defensively outstanding (which he isn't) simply because he was able to pick off most of his shots with a standard high guard. I have no issue with anyone saying Mayweather won by 2 or 3 points, as Oscar was languid and lethargic himself, and there were some close rounds in there for sure, but one thing he didn't do, was school Oscar in anyway. If anything, he showed just how much trouble he'd be in if he faced a fresher Oscar of a decade before.

No need to elaborate mate, you have described my scoring philosophy to a T :good

 

Good post. The first time I watched the fight I scored it for Calzaghe, but upon watching it again I can really see the argument that Hopkins won.

 

I thought Leonard clearly beat Hagler.

I also had Winky v Hopkins a 114-114 draw.

 

My sentiments exactly. I thought it was a performance very like Leonard v Hearns I (where the lethargy of the eventual victor cannot be accounted for), except that Leonard was facing superior opposition and had the skills and the fire to produce an all-time great lethal finish. Floyd had a tired, past-prime fighter in the ring with him and just didn't have the offensive arsenal or seemingly the will to do likewise.

For me there's very little doubt that peak Oscar beats peak Floyd at 147. I don't really understand what people have seen in Floyd's brief and underwhelming welterweight career to make them think that the Pretty Boy could compete with proven quality welterweights like Oscar, Tito, Mosley 2000, the Sweet Pea of '93 and possibly even Quartey. Floyd at 147 was a pale imitation of the 130 version IMO.

That's good to know in an age where the masses seem to worship the Gods of Workrate and "Aggression" (effective or otherwise)!! :good