Chambers: No sour grapes, but Adamek was the easiest I've fought in years!

who gives a **** about that card? Is that why you're mad at Adamek? The other two more reasonable cards prevailed, all from experienced judges and the right decision was made.

 

Can anybody phrase a reasonable sentence as to how Adamek won that fight without using"outwork", "more active" or "aggressor"? Since neither of these attributes has anything to do with winning a round.


I love how not a single Pole on ESB had Chambers winning that fight as opposed to only a third of ESB believing Adamek won the fight (based on the poll in the other thread).

Nationalist maggots, kill yourself. Most unhonorable group of supporters on ESB ever, worse than Klit fans.

 

have you not deleted these comments that make u look thick as chomp.as i stated before i was refering to the judges score card that someone posted u tit...are you a ****ing ******>?

 

Dumass polak with a broken nose u can still fight... with a bicep u cant punch...& he clearly outboxed Adamek with one arm.. & im not british & i dont like Haye but he would knock adamek head off!!.

 

According to stats Adamek threw something like 500 more punches than Chambers. Chambers landed something like 15 more punches overall, according to these numbers. Now, since we know that punch stats are not perfect because they are counted subjectively, which statistic (Adamek throwing 500 more punches or Chambers landing just 15 more) will have the bigger margin for error?

 

You sounded pretty confident prior to the fight about Chambers completely outclassing Adamek. :rofl:rofl

 

Is that why Haye has been avoiding Adamek like the plague (has turned down lucractive fights with Adamek twice). Again, lets use evidence instead of speculation as evidence is there for all to see: Adamek has the better career resume and now the better HW resume. :hi:

 

:|

 

So, you disregard Chambers' defense entirely when it comes to scoring a round? You feel that Adamek should be rewarded for missing punches as opposed to rewarding Chambers for blocking and dodging Adamek's flurries? How about you stop making up rules in your mind? Or is that how you guys in Poland learn boxing?

 

Uhhhh, the Chisora in my avatar is a JOKE, read the captions.atschatsch

You think Adamek can beat Chisora?

 

An out of shape, unmotivated Arreola at that.

 

I'm not a Brit and I think people were really unfair to Helenius, when he fought a gutsy fight against Del Boy with the same injury that nuked Vitali when he fought Byrd.

And Chisora admitted that Helenius still almost knocked him out in round one, that he was ready to go but held on.

Helenius is a badass and if he heals properly he will still be a HW force.

I had Adamek beating Chambers 115-114, not an impressive win against one-armed Eddie who has no power.

 

I'm saying what is only logical. From a judge's stand point, Adamek would have likely landed way more punches than Chambers. Punch stats, just like the judges opinions are subjective and many of those 500 extra punches that Adamek threw, were inevitably scored by the judges (many of the punches thrown could have landed only partially and a judge could score them whereas punch stats guy would not) and that difference could easily overcome the insignificant 15 more punches that Chambers supposedly landed. Only an idiot would take the punch stats literally and discount a fighter who has overwhelmingly thrown more punches than his opponent. Way the go idiot. Keep cheering for these slick defensive geniuses who are more active with their facial expressions and antics than their fists. This is why boxing is DEAD in your country. All flash zero substance on top of getting your asses kicked quite regularly these days.

 

1. The judges were clearly crooked. 119-109? Lol, you and me, both know the fix was in. Chambers participated in a preconcluded fight.

2. CompuBox numbers are determined by people who, like the judges, sit ringside and count the punches. Why do CompuBox employees always have it right but judges so pathetically wrong?

3. I couldn't care less about your twisted, nationalist definition of logic how to score a fight. The scorecards were filled out before the fight. That's why Adamek won, there's no other explanation. Throwing punches while not landing and concluding with a <15% connect percentage adds absolutely nothing to your argument. How did the judges fail to see that Adamek blocked one third (!) of Chambers punches with his ****ing face? Chambers on the other hand, made Adamek miss all night and landed with virtually every third shot he threw. He was perfectly comfortable in there boxing a vastly inferior pub fighter who was eating the same right hand all night against a one-armed CW. Adjustments Adamek displayed? As expected, none. Chambers outlanded him, had a better connect-%, a better defense, a better offense and a torn biceps. Think about it you spastic.

4. Style over substance? How ironic, Adamek's style of flurrying into thin air did seem pretty ****ing unsubstantial to me whereas Chambers toyed with him like the C-level HW Adamek is.

Holy ****, log off. Worst analysis ever. None of you Poles know **** about boxing. You guys are utter turds, no exception.

 

Bottom line this was a close fight, there has been a lot of robberies in boxing lately, but this certainly is not one of them.