It got me thinking, there are a lot of robberies that occur and people get pissed off over it, but what about close fights with **** scoring, or fights where the right result was given but the scorecards were still terrible? Going back to the Dirrell/Froch fight? I've said my peice about who I thought won that fight so I'm not gonna argue that, but let's use rounds 1 and 2 as an example. The reason you get controversy is because fools actually try to make a winner in these rounds. NOTHING happened in the first two rounds of that fight. There is nothing you can use to justify giving those rounds to either Froch or Dirrell. Have people not heard of 10/10rounds? ****ing hell. If there's no clear winner, why not score it even and move the **** on! This pisses me off so much because even in rounds where nothing happens, people use the STUPIDEST (is that a real word?) reasons to justify scoring it a 10/9 round. "oh but Froch looked like he landed 1 shot more than Dirrell", "oh but Dirrell should get the round cuz he showed better ring generalship", "oh but Froch is the champion so he should get the close rounds by default" (this is another thing that gets me:fire:fire:fire) etc. This is moronic. People say "nothing much happened so you could score it either way" No you CANNOT! If nothing happens you don't give it to either fighter! Why do people not score 10/10 rounds? Does anyone have an answer? The object of boxing is to hit and not be hit. Did Froch or Dirrell do that in the first couple? Hell no. For my second point, let's take the Haye/Valuev fight. Let me start by saying that I was supporting Valuev in that fight so I'm not biased towards Haye in any way. According to the object of the sport which is to hit and not be hit, I thught Valuev won 1 or 2 rounds. I watched the fight sober. Valuev was terrible and did not land **** on Haye. How did those two judges have it so close at 116-112? And the moron that scored it a draw? Unbelievable, I don't even know what to say to that. All Valuev had to do was to hit thin air and a judge gave him a draw for it. When it comes to judging I don't let bias get in the way, and I can't understand why people find it so difficult to do that. Judges and fans. I'm a huge Pac fan but I gave Clottey 3/4 rounds, which is more than anyone else I know. It's not rocket science, just follow some simple rules and it can't go too wrong. 1. If it's very close, score it 10/10. No giving it to the home town fighter, no giving it to the champ, just score it 10/10/. 2. Even if you throw a million punches a round, you should not be rewarded for hitting thin air and coming forward. You must land more than your opponent to win the round. It doesn't matter if you run, charge forward or whatever. If you don't land, you don't win ****. 3. The only case where a fighter who lands less than his opponent should be awarded the round is if he gets a knockdown or if his punches are more hurtful. e.g. if fighter A lands 20 shots in the round but all of them were jabs, and fighter B lands only 6, but they were all crisp, clean power punches that snapped his opponents head back, there is maybe a case for awarding the round to fighter B. 4. **** the unwritten hometown fighter rule, **** the "can't steal the belt from the champ, you gotta do somethin special and win it properly" rule. Just score the fight. Nothing else matters. Of course that's never gonna happen but oh well:roll: Another one that was forgotten about was Mosley v Mayorga. To think Mosley would've been awarded the fight had he not knocked out Mayorga. Crazy. people say this sport is subjective but that's a pure cop out. Subjective is Barrera v Morales or Pac v Marquez. The result of Haye/Valuev was not subjective it was a FACT. A FACT that Haye schooled that giant. No one made a fuss over it because the right result was reached and Haye was announced winner but the truth is the judging was still not good. It's beyond a joke and these guys are playing with fighters careers. Rant over. What do you think? Am I being OTT?
Skimmed thought most of that and I do agree that if you can't pick a round winner then a 10/10 should be awarded. I always use a 10/10 when it is a close round which you can't reli score to either fighter
good post mate i fully agree. 10/10 rounds need to be used more but people dont seem to like to do it cause they think it shows there unsure about who won the round when really nobody won the round so its the right call. were always gonna have **** judging so boxers need to make there win as clear has possible.
