Crazy Scorecards,,,,

Whiataker vs Ramirez, 118-113 for Ramirez

 

i hate that even if the right guy wins the scores should atleast be accurate

 

i dont know the exact scorecard as it was not announced on the tv but i was watching an old tape the other week from 88. lloyd christie got the decision over an american import called tim burgess over ten rounds .how the ref gave it to christie i will never know, i think it was one of the last fights that christie won

 

my scorecards had hagler beating leonard and leonard beating duran:yep:think

 

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:841278

 

edit

 

Why do you use commas for ellipsis?

 

Fair enough my good man. Just interested, because I've noticed you doing it enough to know it hasn't been typos.

 

don't like to keep harping on about but when my dad fought Lionel Rose for the title in Australia the scorecards were
referee: Vic Patrick 63-70 Rose
judge: Ray Mitchell 60-75 Rose
judge: Ron Walden 70-69 Rudkin
the general consensus was that Walden's was the most accurate either way
I don't know what fight Mitchell was watching.
Am I bitter about it...... yes!

 

When they announced the scorecards for that Ali--Young fight.

right scores, wrong winner announced. I can remember thinking man, they're going to give it to Young and have Ali lose by that much? He was close on the cards in the first Norton and Frazier bouts and I thought the cards should've been lopsided. Were we going to have a lopsided scored bout against Muhammad? Nope. One judge had Ali winning 12 or 13 rounds. I didn't think Ali landed 12 or 13 clean punches the whole fight. Kind of like that Whitaker--Ramirez fight; just when did the guy land anything to actually win rounds?


Or the Williams scorecard for the first Holyfield-Lewis bout. How could the fight card be remotely close? I guess giving lots of points for absorbing well. I had it 11-1 Lennox and the round that went to Evander was probably even, when watching it again.

But it all boils down to the house fighter gets the breaks. Always.

 

Two which always jump to mind for me are for Tyson-Holyfield I, when one judge had it scored 100-93 Holyfield by the stoppage - scoring 4 of the first 5 rounds a draw, which is unbelievably lazy.

And then a judge that went a step further for Rahman-Tua I, by the time of the stoppage having Rahman just 89-87 up - so 5 drawn rounds. Have to wonder if he just fell asleep for twenty minutes and hurribly wrote his card up.

Seem to remember Witherspoon-Bruno having a ton of drawn rounds too.

I don't like scoring drawn rounds myself but I know they have their place, and on very rare occasion I'll use them. But in that number, pretty ridiculous.

 

Roland Dakin would have had Minter a shutout winner over Antuofermo if Carlos Padilla had not ruled a shove to the floor as a knockdown in favor of Vito, but Dakin was prejudiced by jingoism, and not an authentic judge. As long as history remembers him at all, he'll be defined by this obscenity.

Angelo Poletti is another such example for Montreal. A judge is there to do just that, judge.

Duane Ford and Dave Moretti have remained extremely active ever since, but I'll always think of them in connection with the scoring for Holmes-Cooney, where they would have had Gerry leading after 12 if not for low blow deductions.