For who did you score Peter-McCline?

Great. How about actually naming rounds you disagree with and giving reasons?

At least he put his card up.

But then again it easier just to spew out some juvenile phraseology rather than actually analyze anything.

 

Pretty much the way I saw it except I feel 2 was only 10-9 for mccline. he was really dominated for the first 2:59 of the round and then scored a knockdown.

 

McCline got the best of his dominant rounds, but as far as the rest of the fight goes.. Peter did what champs do , overcome adversity and keep the belt in tact.. Remember he had a change of oponent 2 times and never complained.. He did very well.. He doesn't have a bad chin, he survived when very hurt and retained the title.. His solid chin kept him in the fight when really he should have been massacred..

 

That happens a lot with peter. He says he is a big puncher and gets hyped that way so the crowdn and unfortuanatlly the judges assume that everything that he is landing is devastating. I think that is the only reason he got the nod in the first TOney fight despite being clearly outlanded.

 

I do think that McCline won a round or two in the late to mid rounds, but have to watch it again to make sure which rounds it was.

No way Peter won every round from the 4th on. No WAY.

 

Great point.

I think the expectations for what Peter's power was supposed to be like probably enhanced the judge's interpretation of the scoring.

As you said, when Peter landed, the crowd responded, even though Peter's shots had little effect. Whereas when McCline landed, not known for being a big puncher, the didn't get the same cheering section support.

But that said, look who was put on their ass three times, and who was never even close to falling. :good

 

I SCORED IT 114 TO 112 FOR SAM PETER.....HE DEFINETLY WON.....MCCLINE PUSSIED OUT DOWN THE STRETCH:smoke:smoke:smoke:smoke:smoke:smoke

 

This is exactly how alot of posters in this forum interpret a fight.
They dont actually score it round by round, but instead put heavy emphasis on the scoring of a single round and two knockdowns in it, and sum up that the fighter who was put on his behind, either lost the fight, or looked terrible in eeking it out......



I scored the fight as it should, round by round, and I gave every round but the 2nd and 3rd to Peter. The 2nd I scored 10-9 McCline as Peter clearly won it before the knockdown at the end of the round, and the 3rd with 2 knockdowns I scored 10-7 for McCline.

Final tally, 116-110 Samuel Peter!


I'm guessing that the fight looked alot closer to those who were'nt scoring in that you always got the sense that after McCline put Peter on severe ***** street in round 3, you sensed that he would do it again.
I actually thought Peter would run into another one of those uppercuts and possibly be hurt again....but in actuality it never came, and Peter did a nice job with mixing in the jab along with some nice body shots and right hands to the head.

There was really nothing hard about scoring this fight.
In the rounds I gave Peter, he lander more, he landed harder, and he landed cleaner, an easy fight to score imo!

 

114-112 For Peter, Mccline won the 2nd and 3rd round, and maybe two other rounds, but he lost all the other rounds.

 

I gave Peter 9 rounds though he could have arguably gotten 10. There was a round where McCline flurried late and I gave it to him based on the recency effect.

Other than the 2 knockdown rounds (one of which may have been a 10-9), it was an easy fight to score. McCline actually built up a solid lead against Byrd only to lose it down the stretch. I had that fight an even draw but it didn't make a difference cuz Byrd would have kept the belt anyway.