Brit Forum scores CONTROVERSIAL fights... #5 Brodie/Chi I

can i nominate Watson vs McDonnel

 

114 113 to collazo for me TFFP

i didnt rewatch it TFFP but thats how i scored it when i saw it live and i rewatched it a few times before hatton pac and scored it the same

imo this was a very good fight except for the result

 

what about toney-mccallum 1 and 2:think very hard fights to score

 

I'm sorry but it sounds like you're just trying to chuck a vote in against Hatton for the sake of it without actually making any effort mate....I doubt very much you watched it "a few times" before Hatton-Pac.

 

TFFP, you've put together a great thread here .. Maybe for your next one you could put the most controversially scored fight of the last 30 years up .... Leonard v Hagler. This fight is still talked about as if it was the biggest robbery of all time. I've watched this fight over 50 times and i always see Leonard winning by 2 rounds .. Herol Graham v Mike McCallum would be another good one ..

 

I'd like to "do" Leonard-Hagler. It should be a fight that everyone can get their hands on as well.

 

Yeah, Collazo is definetly a good, solid fighter.

As for Hatton... if a guy who has to boil down to 140, can't effectively move up a whole 7 pounds in weight, then he obviously wasn't very good to begin with, IMO. And certainly shouldn't be considered amongst the P4P elite, like Hatton has been (no pun intended) in recent times.

 

Collazo v Hatton, Morales v Barerra 1 & 2, Pac v Marquez 1 & 2 and fights of that ilk are very subjective .... Depending on what you as an individual look for in a fighter is the way you score the fight ..
I've watched Calzaghe v Hopkins 4 or 5 times and i can easily score that for Hopkins, but i can also easily score it for Calzaghe. Im not a Joe fan so i think Hopkins won because even though Calzaghe was pushing the fight he didnt land anything on Hopkins of any note and a boxer who throws 200 punches a round but only lands 10 is an innaccurate boxer to me and shouldnt be applauded for it. But once again that is my own personal point of view

 

Yes but please lets not us have to do Calzaghe vs Hopkins for the next fight!

 

Ike Quartey v De La Hoya, Trinidad v De La Hoya, and Mosley v De La Hoya 2 are also fights that are very subjective ..... I dont think the results are 'controversial' . 'Controversial' for me is, Sturm v De La Hoya, Holyfield v Lewis 1, Pintor v Zarate and Whitaker v Chavez, these fights are 'Controversial.
Hatton v Collazo could have gone either way and nobody would complain, if i remember right i had Collazo beating Hatton that night by a point

 

Aaaargghhh how many times

Moving through the weights is no prerequisite for either a p4p ranking or for someone to be regarded as 'good to begin with'

The WHOLE IDEA of p4p is to theoretically compare guys who can't fight each other on a level playing field, due to size difference

Moving up and succeeding rightfully gets praised but it's NOT a knock if a fighter can't do it

It all comes down to the physiology and style of the fighter


Marvin Hagler, end of story

 

My take on Calzaghe-Hopkins is that at least JC was doing something, punching and connecting. A lot of people who have Hopkins winning cite "ring generalship" as an excuse for Hopkins low punch output but ring generalship isn't muddling through a fight, its dictating the terms on which the fight is fought and I don't thing Hopkins did that enough to outweigh the fact that Calzaghe threw and landed more punches.

 

Don Curry, epilogue.

 

calzaghe vs hopkind should maybe be next after Leonard hagler

 

Agreed mate .. Any Hopkins fight, especially before he fought Tito is going to be really messy. His Robert Allen and Antwun Echols fights were really scratchy affairs but thats what Hopkins is .. The most boring fight ive ever seen involved Derrick 'Smoke' Gainer, i cant remember who it was against but it was painful to watch ..