Just watched Scott Glaskov again, turned the sound off, scored it very close. Then turned the sound on, and heard BJ Raji talk about how dominant Scott was. It was a very close match, with Scott landing more than Glaskov, but Glaskov being the aggressor and seemingly hurting Scott more than vice versa. I gave slight advantage to Scott, but a draw is legit, and even a victory for Glaskov wouldn't have been a robbery. Then I remembered how horrible BJ Flores is at scoring matches. He's off on absolutely everything. He had Adamek losing to Chambers, which is just atrocious, but worse yet he acted outraged by the decision. It was fairly close, but deserved to be the unanimous decision victory for Adamek. Flores seems to only care about raw punches landed, not effective aggression which is an important part of scoring, or impact of punches. That is, when he even sees the punches, I remember he talked about how much more Chambers was landing in one round then compubox shows Adamek landed more. There are other commentators worse in other ways, but as far as actually scoring matches, he's got to be the worst out there.
I saw the fights same way. Chambers-Adamek was close but I thought that even one handed Chambers did more than enough to deserve victory. Scott-Glazkov was a boxing lesson. Wasn't even close IMO.
Then you saw wrong, or you were just listening to Flores. When compubox is close, and Scott is running, its a joke to saw it wasn't even close. As far Adamek, its was 8 to 4 Adamek at least. He threw way more, pressed the action, landed more telling punches, and landed almost as many.
I think Flores tends to really bias his commentary and score and like Harold Lederman will just continue to give the same guy a whole bunch of rounds even when he is not winning them I use the comparison because I think both just watch one fighter the whole fight and score for that guy when he does something but dont watch both guys I also dont hold Flores in high regards as a fighter as he earned mandatory status for Cunningham and Adamek and never took his shot only to sit on a ranking til Danny Green beat him
His commentary is fine. The only people accusing him of bias are bitter Adamek fans (who can't accept that Chambers schooled him with one arm) and it would seem also bitter fans of Glazkov, who did indeed get schooled by Scott.
I don't care at all about Glaskov, and am not really a "fan" of Adamek, although I do respect him as a top 5 or 6 HW and that he was clearly better than Chambers. Have you ever stopped to wonder why fights he provides commentary on suddenly have controversial outcomes? Its not coincidence, its just that he gives lame, horrible analysis that is at odds with the fight the judges are watching, but since viewers are hearing his mindless blather, it affects they way they see the fight. Most neutral unbiased observers have both fights going the way they were officially scored or, like me with Scott Glasgow, slightly off but respect that it was certainly no robbery.