George "Sugar" Costner beat Gavilan and Ike Williams with one eye

I just don't have the faith in my own cards that you do. I just don't see it as simple as me, scoring a 1950 fight with 2010 eyes and getting it "right". SO, it would need to be pretty seriously dominant. In all honesty, that would hurt Sugar more than help KG for me, because I am very high of KG as a h2h force, I'd consider him the #2 WW head to head of whom there is enough film to make judgement on. So probably Armstrong to 3, Robinson to 4, KG into my top 20 up from the low twenties.

 

I do, but it's difficult enough to go disagreeing with judges without knowing exactly what they are being briefed to by that particular governing body these days.


So inflicting my opinion upon boxing judges 60 years previously, when there were differences in judging again...I don't feel comfrotable doing it. So I don't...but like I say, if I see a robbery I call it out, and I enjoy reading scorecards of you and others, it's a very good guide. I just need a bit more than most to chuck them out.

 

No, not that much, but something will have been said to these guys - as long as the fighters knew about it, then no harm. I'm just not privy to the same information about what's important as these guys. They will be looking for slightly different things than you or I anyway, because they are different people, I just feel that those guys are more involved with the boxing culture at that time than I am.

 

1910 is a good example. Close rounds might be decided by aggression alone, though they are MUCH more likely to be scored even, which can , of course, make a seemingly ridiculous card perfectly reasonable.

1990? Depending upon the judge close rounds can be decided on any number of factors, but affective aggression versus clean hitting is the most difficult. BOTH are reasonable.

Take Marquez-Pacquiao II. I can see cards that are reasonable based upon judging criteria that has any one of three results. I personally scored it for Marquez. So? People are welcome to draw their own conclusions, I do too, but I need to see rounds that are clearly scored wrong before I can toss out a decision, personally.

 

I don't mind it, not at all, i just am talking purely about myself here. And I agree that if a couple of guys who have seen a fight that I trust disagree with the judges I take that on board. I just am less comfortable ceeding the judges cards in favour of my own than most guys, I guess.

 

Yeah, that's right - which is why I feel the judges cards should take presidence. Basically, if you are a fighter, there are only three people in the entire world that you need to impress, in keeping with the rules of scoring in your era, and they are the judges. If you manage to do that, why should you be penalised by some guys watching the fight 60 years later, 20 years after you are dead?

Unless it looks blatant. But like I say, that is just me.