Against The Grain - Your Score Cards

oh didnt know i was just going on judges

that was a robbery then as big as pea vs chavez

 

Absolutely.....I thought it was the only fight of the trilogy that had a clear cut winner.......unfortunately boxing being boxing, the hand of the wrong fighter was raised!:nut

 

I'm one of those people.

At the very least, I feel the fight could've gone either way. Out of all Ali's "disputed" decisions, I'm aware that this one is by far the least disputed.


I thought Hopkins-Wright could've been a draw as well, though I would've had no arguments with a close decision for Hopkins.

No way Chavez beat Whitaker, but I thought the fight was somewhat closer than I lot of people make it out to be.

There seems to be two schools of thought on Barrera-Marquez: one that says it was a clear win for Marquez (the way the judges had it), and the other says it was a very close, hard to score fight. Personally I agree with the latter, though admittedly I haven't seen the fight since it happened.

 

Holyfield clearly won the 2nd Lewis fight, IMO anyway. I was shocked when they announced the score and so were a lot of people I was with at the time.

 

:yikes

 

Oh well let the bashing begin...I still score Pea vs Chavez as a draw, and see it as a robbery in no way!

Not sure if this is against the common perception but I agree with the 1 judge who had mancini beating camacho as opposed to the other 2. I can't find any way that camacho wins that fight in umpteen veiwings??

 

While I agree with the overall sentiment in the last line it is a real stretch to describe a lot of what Hopkins did in that fight as artistic. He spolied, held, faked low blows, generally did as much as he could to kill the opportunity of a spectacle.

Why he gets so much praise for this surprises me, the age factor means Hopkins has a more sympathtic audience for these tactics, the crafty veteran stealing back an advantage from his younger foe appeals, but the incredibly cynical nature of Hopkins showing did him no credit IMO.

I think both men, if honest would admit to displeasure at the overall quality of their performances. Perhaps their styles made that inevitable, both are excellent at neutralizing an opponents best work.

This board(or whatever medium replaces it) will still be debating who won the fight years from now, A majority tend to favour JC, but giving it to Hopkins is not unfathomable.


Just on the subject of the thread, I thought Hopkins-Wright was a lot closer than the scorecards stated, thought Floyd won far wider over DLH

 

I agree with most of this post.....

I'm in favor of judges not allowing a fighter to win a round against a busier fighter in the way that Hopkins attempted vs Calzaghe.....which is mainly connecting with 2 or 3 of the cleaner shots in the rounds, but spending the great majority of the round stalling fistic activity, while Calzaghe is the fighter working his hands and staying busy.....

I usually tend to favor the fighter that lands the clean connects, but not in a case like Hopkins when he is'nt in the mindset to create consistently on the offensive end.

You just cant have judges rewwarding Hopkins for the types of fights he displayed vs Calzaghe and prior to that Jermaine Taylor.......to award such performances, that would encourage other fighters to strictly win by using defensive tactics, to the detriment of seeing offensive boxing displays.......

There are'nt many true boxing fans to begin with, but to consistently see displays like the ones Hopkins created vs Calzaghe and Taylor, we'd be looking at drop of the poor fanbase we already have today.

Safety first types of performances are not good for boxing.....so yeah, there is a reason why the great majority of the time judges will not award a fighter a round strictly for his great defense.