Just wondering about this term. I kind of feel like a fight can't be close if it's clear and can't be clear of it's close. So, when people use this term, what kind of point difference are they talking about?
Okay, so it's less about the final score card and more about how significantly the balance of the fight shifted? I'll have to watch the Cotto/Mosley I guess but 7-5 even in that order sounds like a close fight to me.
Matthysse/Alexander in favor of Matthysse is a great example. It was only a mere 1 point win, but it was a very clear 1 point win that however many times I watch it, I will always come up with that same score. Anything that is decided by 2 or less points but there is no way you could really score it any closer. Ala Mayweather vs. Castillo II, 7-5, close but clear. (even their first fight for me, but hey, enough people say they thought Castillo won for me to respect that) Also, you could say a fight that was, say, 8-4 but the rounds were competitive, etc, could be described the same way. Ala Pacquiao vs. Marquez III, 8-4 JMM, close but clear. Clearer in this case than the above example. Same with Trout/Cotto, 8-4, close but clear (somewhat close scoring, close action in rounds Trout won, close... but clear).
could say Pascal vs Hopkins I Pascal got 2 10-8 rounds and won 2 more rounds then Hopkins won like 8 in a row so he won by 2 points but it was impossible to give it to Pascal but was close ln the card
Yeah, that actually makes sense. A fight might technically be close on the scorecards but if there's next to no general disagreement then it's clear who the winner is. In the context of a consensus that makes sense.