Calzaghe must be top 10 atg ?

:good:good cheers, yeah disagreements are bound to happen in such a subjective sport.

reid v joe is a good fight and more people should watch it. round 11 was hard to score, if i'd have given it joe, he wins the fight.

when i say who i think won a fight i aint talking about robberies, i'm talking about who i scored for the last time i watched it.

like for instance kessler v frovch, i had it 115-113 for froch but i wouldn't call it a robbery.

 

well i've put the thread up in general as well so you can peruse at will :good

yeah i'm not really arsed how you view my credibility. we also have different views on what a challenger is. IMO joe wasn't really a champ until 2001 when it was pretty much accepted he was the best out there at 168. in 99 him and reid, no reason to give joe an edge in a round because he beat eubank a couple of years earlier.

well if i'm mentally ******ed i feel sorry for the kids i teach. poor buggers.

 

i aint gonna sit down and score it agin now, got other fights i need to score first, mainly the mab-em trilogy, floyd-castillo and hopkins-calzaghe

but for those interested here is the first part of the fight. i suggest you watch it, quite good.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHgBbM7pHNc[/ame]

 

the guy with the belt: the champion. you may not consider him a good champion or a "proper" champion...but whether they are ring, wbo, british or commonwealth champion...if they walk in the ring to defend that belt they are the "defending champion".

the guy trying to win that belt: the challenger.

kinda simple really.

well...if you're a teacher; that explains it...:good

 

true but like i said before, i judge through my eyes not someone else's.

ploys will know when this fight was scored by myself because he dug it up, so i'm not sure how long ago it was, but i do know until i re-score it, i'm happy with my opinion.

yeah reid v ottke was terrible, not only was it a clear 7-5 to reid IMO, but there was also a kd turned foul incident in one of the worst displays if bias i've seen. even still reid should win by a clear point or more imo.

 

he might have held a belt but so what? doesn't give him som special right to close rounds. i watch a round and make a judgement on who won it, even if that means reid edges 4 rounds in a row.

maths teacher - boxing not sure i see the relationship there :huh

 

tbf reid actually gave up halfway through the fight...mostly cos he was told he was 6 rds down & the ref had it in for him. in the end it actually wasn't a robbery from the judges...

still a disgraceful fight tho.

 

i don't put a lot of truck in the idea...but i think there is a notion that you have to "take" a champions belt.

regardless...calzaghe didn't need that...& you gave EVERY close round to reid...& one that really is impossible to score for him cos he did absolutely **** all except hold & get hit...so you are clearly biased in some way...or maybe just looking to be controversial. i dunno. something is up. :roll:

weird that you brought it up then; ******. :good

 

Maybe back in the day when you had to knockout the champion to take his belt, but not in this day and age when belts are handed out for fun.

Meh only so many times I can respond to the same point.

Lol what is there to be biased about? Two english supermiddleweights who were both retired at the point I scored it. I don't see how bias can come into it. It's not like me scoring the fight will ever diminish what calz achieved nor will it ever increase what reid achieved.

You're use of the semi-colon is shocking! You said I was mentally ******ed hence I expressed sympathy for the kids I teach

 

i said i don't believe in it. but you did ask what difference it made. i answered your question. :thumbsup

:nono

if you scored round 1 to reid...you are clearly biased...or looking to be controversial...or something is up. like i said. keep up.

no argument about anything on a boxing forum will ever change anything. so why bother?

not really. ideally, i should have used a comma, i suppose, but it's a transition & thus appropriate. stick to maths.

you can pass on my sympathies too. :thumbsup

 

I'd, silencer, I'd. Haha

 

More of a rhetorical question, especially considering the validity of the "championship"

Where were both born again?

...

Debating is fun and enlightening, surely we're all here for this reason? Bias doesn't play a part surely? I mean I wanted naz to beat mab and was gutted he lost but that was over ten years ago now.

Nah, you're wrong again mate.

I will do in september when I go back to work

 

i don't think you understand what a rhetorical question is. it is not merely a question to which you don't expect a reply. it should be a question where there is only one reply because of the obviousness of the answer.

it should also be framed as a question rather than a statement to be debated with.

well; look at me...teaching the teacher.

are you saying calzaghe is not welsh?

if we're getting tough on grammar the correct usage of an ellipsis is not hanging randomly in a massive gap between paragraphs. :good

oh right. maybe you could start debating then. you've barely discussed the fight except in hazy "look at my card i did ages ago" terms. you've mostly brought up complete irrelevencies such as your occupation or your other scorecards or even the nationality of the fighters. you have pretty much refused to discuss the fight. which makes me wonder why you're posting.

you wanna debate? how did you have reid winning round 1? what did he do in that round that swung it for you?

i didn't say it was necessarily "bias". altho you keep on insisting i did. i have merely presented "bias" as one of a number of reasons why someone could be so blatantly & obviously incorrect & also unrepentant about it. were you not required to have basic reading skills to pass your pgce? not for maths i suppose.

seeing as how you have completely missed the point i was making i don't believe you can really say i am "wrong". :thumbsup

enjoy your holidays. your brain clearly is. :good

 

I believed the answer to be obvious.

You're right i'm not debating it because it seems silly me trying to recall a scorecard from memory when it was about 8 month since I watched it.

Why are we having this conversation? None of us have the fight on now, it isn't a recent event, why bother?

I'm debating the validity of wlad's lineage, the greatness of greb, khan's decision to move up and whether or not floyd is past his best.

At some point tonight either my football team will having a night out or they won't. In case of the latter i'll re-score this fight just for you on this thread. Perhaps you could do the same and we can compare scores, then a debate would be more relevant