Fight of the week #2: Lupe Pintor v. Carlos Zarate

From the scoring in this thread, including my own, it was a very close fight with lots of close rounds that could have gone either way.

Not saying Zarate didn't win (I had him by two points) but the knockdown was the only really clear distinguisher between them. A point or two victory either way or a draw are all reasonable possibilities imo.

 

More media cards:

The Press (all associations) all scored it for Carlos Zarate.

146-140 (The Oakland Tribune)
146-140 (International Boxing)
147-138 (The Associated Press)
146-139 (Mexican Press Review)
146-139 (Los Angeles Times)
146-141 (Star-Press)
147-141 (Sentinel-Times)

 

Lol I won’t speak for everyone but media cards don’t really sway me one way or the other....almost as bad as using compubox to determine who won a round or fight.

 

Why do all the media cards say the same thing? Not one or two, I gave a sample of 10. When this happens, maybe you should considerer it.

Where are the punch stats, as yes they can mean something when one guy out lands the other by a good margin and some judge calls it the wrong way. In my book unless one fighter was hurt, that is a " stolen round ".

Finally I have seen too much " judges math " in the final three rounds to make sure someone wins, when the rounds shown don't always agree. This is why I want to see the full judges cards. From my memory, Zarte won most of the early rounds and the final rounds were close.

It looks like most cards here feel Zarte won. Like I said Pintor needs 9 rounds to win.

 

Zarate must have looked more convincing from ringside than on film then!

 

I should consider it because you presented 10? Is this an exhaustive list? To me this is akin to seeing whose post gets more likes to be a good or effective post or whose YouTube video recurved more likes?

Who are these media members and what is there boxing knowledge and background? Most of the public media I see treat boxing as a fringe sport, but they become boxing aficionados when scoring them...not real impressed whether I agree with thier particular assessment or not.

Punch stats are so wildly inaccurate that a punch on the arm scores the same as a hook to the body. It further muddies an already subjective and cloudy determination and I see very little value in them over the eye test.

I agree a lot of judging seems poor or often agenda based and I am not defending that...but media scorecards or punch stats are no more or less valid in most cases.

 

Here's a thought - why don't you sit down and watch the fight yourself again and score it objectively?

Then post your scorecard and we can continue the conversation. That's kind of how this thread and Fight of the week concept is supposed to work.

For example, I haven't posted in the Duran-Leonard one yet because although I've seen the fight many times before, I haven't rewatched it recently enough to offer my view again on the scoring with fresh eyes.

When I do, I'll post in the thread with my up-to-date scorecard.

 

Was I the only one who thought Pintor did better than you remembered? I remembered the fight as a clear victory for Zarate, and even though I have him ahead, it wasn't all that clear.

 

Actually, no. I remember first watching the fight about 10-15 years ago having previously read that it was a robbery, so when I saw it I thought ‘hang on, this is actually close’, particularly after Pintor wobbled Zarate in the 10th. At the end, I thought the knockdown was the main difference.

Watching it again makes me realise that my memory of it was pretty good.

 

That's exactly how I see it. Even had Zarate by two points .

 

I think the myth that seemed to grow over the years about this fight, based on press reports, was that Zarate won the fight clearly and the two judges who scored for Pintor got it badly wrong.

The version that seems closer to the truth is that the two judges who scored for Pintor (both by a single point) were far closer to the mark than the judge whose apparent bad maths managed to give the fight to Zarate by 12 points!

 

Are there any media cards that say Pinto won? If so how many? 10-0 is what I was able to find in favor of Zarte. Back then, the people covering boxing knew a bit more than they do now. Today, yes its fringe sport. ( on the rise again ). In the 1970's, it was a much more respected and covered sport.

Punch stats are a piece of the puzzle and a indication of bad judging in certain rounds. They have some value.

It seems that most who scored it here agree with the 10 media cards, Zarte should have won it.

 

Just watch the fight and post your card. Otherwise you're just posting second hand information.

 

The argument of whether or not Zarate deserved the verdict is almost a side discussion anymore. The real argument is just how ridiculous a decision it was. I think the prevailing winds subscribe to the idea that it wasn't really all that bad and that we've all seen far worse decisions. I don't think many are trying to argue it much further than that. As mentioned, I scored it for Zarate too, by two points. Two points difference over 15 rounds is a close fight any way you look at it, and not many people who actually know how to score fights have it all that much wider. I maintain (as most do) that the whole uproar over the hideous injustice done here is completely overblown and there are a whole bunch of other, better axes to grind for people intent on finding conspiracy in boxing.

 

Agreed I had it 8 6 1 Zarate. With easily 2 rounds that we up in the air. Found the fight to lack action this time around. NO CONTROVERSY WHATSOEVER IMO!